Karnataka HC Dismisses Bail Cancellation Pleas in Kudupu Mob Lynching Case, Issues Detailed Directives on Victim Notice and Interim Compensation
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil declined to cancel bail for accused in the Ashraf lynching case but found the Sessions Court erred in not notifying the victim's next of kin before granting bail, and directed the State to frame an interim compensation scheme within three months.
The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed seven criminal petitions seeking to cancel bail granted to several accused in Crime No.37/2025, arising from the death of one Ashraf at Kudupu, Mangaluru, on 27 April 2025. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, sitting singly at Bengaluru, held that although the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, committed a grave error by granting bail without notifying or hearing the next of kin of the deceased, that procedural lapse alone was not sufficient ground to cancel the bail at this stage. The court took into account that chargesheets had already been filed, that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had granted bail to co-accused after hearing the victim's family, and that the Supreme Court had rejected the State's special leave petitions against those co-accused. In dismissing the petitions, the court also issued a comprehensive set of directives requiring the State to formulate an interim victim compensation scheme and mandating that courts ensure timely notice to victims in mob violence cases.
The Kudupu Incident and the Bail Orders Under Challenge
On 27 April 2025, a cricket match was organised by a club called “Amazing Friends Konguru, Kulashekara” at Kallurti Temple, Kudupu. During the match at around 3 p.m., the deceased, Ashraf, came to the venue raising a slogan “Pakistan, Pakistan.” Several cricket players and audience members, including the accused, followed him. Ashraf ran and fell on the centre of the road. The group surrounded him, kicked and assaulted him. He suffered blunt injuries and succumbed to those injuries.
Based on a complaint by one Deepak Kumar, the Mangaluru Rural Police registered Crime No.37/2025 against the accused for offences punishable under Section 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 then filed bail applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Sessions Court.
The Sessions Court allowed the bail applications in several orders passed between 31 May and 6 June 2025. The grounds varied: in Crl.Misc.No.423/2025, bail was granted because the accused's name did not appear in the FIR but was added later during investigation. In Crl.Misc.Nos.426/2025 and 442/2025, bail was granted on parity with co-accused who had already been released. In Crl.Misc.Nos.394/2025 and 395/2025, the ground was absence of criminal antecedents.
Abdul Jabbar, brother of the deceased Ashraf, filed four of the seven petitions before the High Court seeking cancellation of those bail orders. The State of Karnataka filed the remaining three. All seven petitions were heard together and reserved on 3 August 2026.
Arguments on the Procedural Lapse and the Merits of Bail
Sri Clifton Rozario, appearing for the next of kin, argued that the Supreme Court's directions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501, require victims or their next of kin to receive timely notice of court proceedings, including bail hearings, in mob lynching cases. No such notice was issued by the Sessions Court, and that non-issuance vitiated the bail orders. He further submitted that the State had not yet formulated a lynching victim compensation scheme with provision for interim relief, as directed in Tehseen S. Poonawalla, and sought a direction to compel its formulation. He relied also on Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, Y v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269, Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher, (2024) 10 SCC 753, Kiran @ Holo Mafatbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, and Sagar v. State of U.P.
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Senior Public Prosecutor-I for the State, supported the cancellation on the ground that the crime was heinous mob lynching and that the Sessions Court had mechanically applied parity without assessing individual roles. He submitted that the chargesheet clearly established the accused's involvement. He also urged that if bail was not cancelled, an additional condition requiring monthly reporting to the police station be imposed to prevent witness tampering, and that the Sessions Court be directed to dispose of the trial within six months per the Tehseen S. Poonawalla guidelines.
Sri Aruna Shyam, Senior Counsel appearing for the accused in five of the petitions, along with other counsel for remaining accused, supported the Sessions Court orders. They pointed out that the chargesheet had already been filed, so custodial interrogation was unnecessary. They also noted that the State had itself challenged bail granted to Accused Nos.4 and 11 before the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl)Nos.13498/2026 and 13907/2026, and those special leave petitions were rejected. They asked that any order setting aside bail not require the accused to surrender, given that liberty was at stake.
How the Court Analysed the Procedural Defect Against the Case for Cancellation
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil began by distinguishing two distinct legal categories. The first is setting aside a bail order on the ground that it was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary at the time it was passed. The second is cancelling bail because of supervening circumstances, such as violation of bail conditions or fresh criminal conduct, after bail has been granted. The court found that this case fell squarely in the first category: there was no allegation that any accused had violated bail conditions or committed further offences. The challenge rested on a procedural deficiency — the Sessions Court's failure to notify the victim's next of kin.
The court accepted that the procedural lapse was real and serious. Guideline 40.20 in Tehseen S. Poonawalla is explicit: victims or next of kin in mob lynching cases must receive timely notice of bail proceedings and be entitled to be heard. The Sessions Court did neither. Justice Patil recorded that the Sessions Court “committed a grave error in failing to issue timely notice to the next of kin of the deceased and also failed to provide an opportunity to the next of kin of the deceased to object.”
Despite this, the court identified five reasons against setting aside the bail at this point.
First, the chargesheet had already been filed in the case. No custodial interrogation of the accused remained necessary.
Second, a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had, in Crl.P.Nos.1258/2025, 1431/2025, 6850/2026, 1487/2026 and 14203/2025, granted bail to co-accused in the same Crime No.37/2025 after hearing objections from the next of kin of the deceased. The facts and charges in those petitions were the same as in the petitions before the court. Denying bail to the present accused would create disparity.
Third, the Supreme Court had already rejected the State's SLP(Crl)Nos.13498/2026 and 13907/2026 filed against the grant of bail to Accused Nos.4 and 11. The court noted that the bail to Accused No.4 by the Co-ordinate Bench had itself been granted without hearing the next of kin, and the Supreme Court affirmed it anyway.
Fourth, setting aside bail and directing the Sessions Court to reconsider after hearing the next of kin would introduce further delay. The Tehseen S. Poonawalla guidelines stipulate that trials in mob violence cases must be concluded within six months of cognizance. Re-opening bail proceedings would cut against that timeline.
Fifth, liberty cannot be curtailed merely for a procedural lapse by a court, when there is no allegation of any violation of bail conditions or misconduct on the part of the accused. The court rejected the argument that parity as a ground for bail was impermissible in this case. It acknowledged that Sagar v. State of U.P. holds that parity cannot be the sole basis for bail and that individual roles must be assessed. However, it noted that mob lynching is collective in nature, no specific individual role can be assigned to each participant, and the charges and facts against the co-accused and the present accused were identical. The parity ground therefore could not be faulted in this case.
The court also rejected the State's request to impose an additional bail condition requiring monthly reporting to the police station. There was no allegation of witness tampering or violation of existing conditions, and the court found no basis for the additional condition.
The Compensation Scheme Gap and the Court's Restatement of Guidelines
On the question of the victim compensation scheme, the State filed a compliance memo with a point-wise chart tracking each directive under paragraph 40 of Tehseen S. Poonawalla. The chart showed that a Government Order — No. HD 1 CRR 2023 dated 27 September 2023 — had been issued for victim compensation. A police inspector attached to the Mangaluru Rural Police Station had been suspended on 1 May 2025 for failure to report information to senior officers and for delay in registering the FIR, and a departmental inquiry had been initiated against him. The chargesheet was filed on 25 July 2025.
However, on examining the Government Order, the court found a specific gap: it did not contain any provision for interim compensation to be paid within thirty days of an incident of mob violence or lynching, as expressly required by guideline 40.16 in Tehseen S. Poonawalla. The court noted that the victim's compensation claim had been rejected by the District Legal Services Authority, and that the existing scheme simply did not address the thirty-day interim relief requirement. On this point, the court directed the State to formulate a scheme incorporating a provision for interim compensation.
The court also used the occasion to restate, in detailed form, the full set of guidelines from Tehseen S. Poonawalla adapted to the current statutory framework, replacing references to CrPC and IPC with corresponding provisions of the BNSS and BNS 2023. These include: appointment of District Nodal Officers with DSP-level assistance and special task forces; identification of vulnerable districts within three weeks; monthly intelligence review meetings; quarterly DGP-level review meetings; dispersal of mobs under Section 148 of BNSS; FIR registration against those spreading inflammatory content under Section 196 of BNS; day-to-day trials in designated or Fast Track Courts with a six-month target for completion; timely victim notice in all bail and related proceedings; free legal aid for victims; witness protection measures; and departmental action against officials who fail to act.
The court further addressed Section 103(2) of the BNS 2023, which explicitly criminalises collective murder by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or similar factors, making every member of the group liable for punishment including death or life imprisonment with fine.
Order
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil dismissed all seven criminal petitions. In addition, the court passed the following directions:
The Registrar General or Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court is directed to circulate the order to all Principal District Judges and Sessions Judges for mandatory compliance of the guidelines set out in the order.
The State Government is directed to formulate a scheme for grant of interim compensation to victims or the next of kin within three months of the order and to file a compliance report before the court.
The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to issue a circular to the concerned branches of the High Court requiring them to raise an objection if the victim is not arrayed as a party in cases involving mob violence or lynching.
The Principal District Judges are directed to issue a similar circular to the concerned branches in the district courts.
The Sessions Court is directed to endeavour to complete the trial and pronounce judgment within the time-bound manner stipulated by the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla.
No order as to costs was made.