Karnataka High Court Pakistan Zindabad Slogan Lynching Case Ruling: The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man accused of mob-lynching a person to death for chanting “Pakistan Zindabad,” observing that even though parity is not absolute, similarly placed accused cannot be deprived of the relief granted to other co-accused.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar was hearing a plea of a man accused of mob-lynching a person of unsound mind to death for entering into a stadium and chanting “Pakistan Zindabad” during a cricket match that happened in 2025.
The petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity, the court held. (Image is enhanced using AI)
The court observed that the allegations against the petitioner and the other accused, who has been granted bail on the ground of using no weapons to assault the deceased, are the same.
There are 216 witnesses cited in the chargesheet, and to record their evidence and to complete the trial, considerable time is required. Therefore, the petitioner is entitiled for grant of bail on the ground of parity, the court held on February 10.
The petitioner is stated to have assaulted the deceased with hands and legs.
The other accused has assaulted the deceased with a club and has been granted bail.
Allegations against the petitioner and the accused to whom the court has granted bail are the same.
There are no previous criminal cases against the petitioner.
Even though parity is not absolute, similarly placed accused cannot be deprived of the relief which has been granted to the other co-accused.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity.
‘No weapons used’
Senior advocate Aruna Shyam and advocate Vikram Raj A, for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner and the people who were watching the match thought the deceased to be a supporter of Pakistan and assaulted him.
The counsel further submitted that the chargesheet was filed, and it was not required to keep the petitioner in custody for further interrogation.
The counsel stated that the petitioner had been in custody since April 29, 2025.
The other accused had been granted bail on January 19.
The counsel argued that the petitioner was similarly placed to that of the accused, who had been granted bail by the court.
The petitioner had not used any weapons to assault the deceased and, on the same grounds, prayed for bail.
The statements of the eyewitnesses were recorded 10 days after the incident, and the allegations against all the accused persons are the same.
Public prosecutor Asma Kouser for the state argued that the petitioner had actively participated in assaulting the deceased.
The chargesheet indicated prima facie against the petitioner for the alleged offences against him.
The post-mortem report indicated that there were umpty number of injuries on the dead body of the deceased, and the doctor had opined that the death was due to injury to the body, head and also kidney injury.
The deceased was suffering from a mental disorder and was a rag picker. He was under treatment in the VRC hospital and the rehabilitation centre.
The petitioner, along with other accused, had caused the death of an innocent man.
The counsel further submitted that the bail granted to the other accused had been challenged, and the cancellation had been sought on these grounds; she prayed for the rejection of the petition.
‘Ground of parity is not absolute’
Advocate Mrudula for the respondent contended that the ground of parity was not absolute, relying on the case of Holo Mafatbhai Parmar v State of Gujarat, wherein, on the ground of common object, the bail plea was rejected.
The parity with the co-accused cannot be the sole or mechanical ground for bail granted.
She further contended, relying on the precedents, that parity is a guide, not a formula, and bail must consider the individual role and proximity of the offences, not mere co-accused status.
On April 27, 2025, an unknown person entered the cricket stadium and allegedly uttered the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” while the cricket match was going on near the Bhatra Kalluratti temple in the outskirts of Mangaluru.
The players and the people who were watching the match thought him to be supporting Pakistan, chased and assaulted the man with their hands and clubs, causing his death.
The petitioner was one of the people from the mob who assaulted the deceased.
A case of unnatural death (UDR) was registered with the Mangaluru Rural police station, and a post-mortem was conducted, which declared the man dead due to umpty number of injuries.
Later, Deepak Kumar, a resident, filed a formal complaint against 19 suspects.
A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and the other people involved in the crime.
The accused persons who had thrown chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased were granted bail on the grounds of not using any weapons on January 19.
‘Relief’
The Karnataka High Court observed that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
The chargesheet has been filed, and the petitioner is not required to undergo further interrogation.
Considering the grant of bail to other accused on similar grounds, the court held that the petitioner could not be deprived of the relief and granted him bail on February 10.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
