Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru was seized of connected criminal petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court in a mob lynching murder case. The matter arose from an incident on 27 April 2025 during a cricket match organised by 'Amazing Friends Konguru, Kulashekara', where the deceased Ashraf allegedly came raising the slogan 'Pakistan, Pakistan'. Accused persons and others followed and assaulted him, resulting in his death. A complaint was filed by one Sri Deepak Kumar, leading to registration of FIR in Crime No.37/2025 by Mangaluru Rural Police for offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 191(3) and 240 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. They filed regular bail petitions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, allowed the bail petitions by orders dated 31 May 2025 in Crl.Misc.No.394/2025 and 395/2025, 5 June 2025 in Crl.Misc.No.423/2025 and 442/2025, and 6 June 2025 in Crl.Misc.No.426/2025. Aggrieved, the State of Karnataka and the next of kin of the deceased filed cancellation petitions under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The next of kin argued that the Supreme Court in Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501 mandated timely notice and hearing for victims or next of kin in bail proceedings concerning mob lynching, and no such notice was issued, vitiating the bail orders. They also contended that the State Government had failed to formulate a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme and ought to be directed to do so and grant interim compensation. Further, they submitted that the offences were heinous and bail should not have been granted solely on parity with co-accused, subsequent implication during investigation, or absence of previous antecedents. The text provided does not include the final order or the court's analysis, as it ends during counsel's submissions. The High Court had heard the petitions and reserved them on 3 August 2026, with pronouncement of order listed for 20 August 2026.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Grounds for Cancellation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439(2); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 483(3) - Petitions by State and next of kin sought cancellation of regular bail granted to accused in mob lynching murder case registered as Crime No.37/2025 for offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners contended that the Sessions Court granted bail solely on parity, subsequent implication, and absence of antecedents, which was impermissible for heinous offences, and that procedural lapses warranted setting aside bail. The court was hearing these submissions but the available text ends before any final ruling (Paras 1-4). B) Constitutional Criminal Law - Victim's Right to Notice and Hearing in Bail Proceedings - Guidelines in Mob Lynching Cases - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 483 - Counsel for the next of kin argued that as per Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501, the victim or next of kin in mob lynching cases must receive timely notice of court proceedings, including bail applications, and be heard. It was submitted that no such notice was issued in the present case, vitiating the bail orders. It was further argued that the State Government had not formulated a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme and should be directed to do so and grant interim compensation. The court had not yet recorded its response in the available text (Paras 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bail orders granted by the Sessions Court in a mob lynching murder case should be cancelled for non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines requiring notice to victim/next of kin and on account of heinous nature of offences, parity, subsequent implication, absence of antecedents, and procedural lapses.
Law Points
- Victim/next of kin entitled to timely notice and hearing in bail proceedings in mob lynching cases
- State Governments directed to formulate lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme and provide interim relief
- bail in heinous offences cannot be granted solely on ground of parity
- subsequent implication
- or absence of antecedents
- cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC / Section 483(3) BNSS may be sought for procedural lapses
- non-issuance of notice to victim vitiates bail order
