‘Spur of the moment’: Karnataka High Court grants bail in Mangaluru mob lynching case

In its order, the bench said, “There are two reports in respect of the same incident, and when the genesis of the crime in both the incidents are looked into, the whole incident has occurred at the spur of the moment by the deceased voluntarily entering the cricket ground and disrupting the match that was being played peacefully. Therefore, the prima facie materials available on record would indicate that there was no premeditation in attacking the injured.”

The court clarified that it would not like to discuss the same further as it would hamper the rights of the parties.

The court also stated, “Fact remains that the petitioner and deceased was unknown to each other and they were strangers, therefore, objection raised by the prosecution and decisions relied, in the considered view of this court would not come in the way of this court exercising its discretionary power to grant bail… not only on ground of parity but also on taking note of material available on record to grant bail, at least at this stage.”

The court allowed the petition, taking note of the fact that the accused has been in custody since April 29, 2025, and the prosecution has cited 216 witnesses in the chargesheet for examination before the trial court.

The attack

On April 27, 2025, an unknown person entered a stadium in Mangaluru and allegedly shouted ‘Pakistan Pakistan’ while a local cricket match was going on. The players and the people who were watching the match, thereafter, chased and assaulted the man, resulting in his death. The petitioner was allegedly a part of the mob that assaulted the deceased. An Unnatural Death Report (UDR) was registered with the Mangaluru Rural police station.

Later, one Deepak Kumar, who is said to have tried to pacify the mob from assaulting the deceased, filed a formal complaint against the accused.

‘Spur of the moment’

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Arun Shyam argued that many other accused in the case have been granted bail and thus the petitioner as well should be granted bail on grounds of parity and merit. Further, he argued that the surgeon who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased had not noted the presence of chill powder on the body of the deceased in his report, and thus the allegation against the petitioner that he sprinkled chilli powder on the wounds and private parts of the victim was false.

Advocate Shyam also informed the court that Manjunatha had filed a report with the police about the incident, and the police had acted on it and filed an Unnatural Death Report (UDR). It was not permissible for the police to file a fresh FIR a day after the incident on the complaint made by Deepak Kumar, he argued.

Further, he claimed that the incident had occurred on the spur of the moment, and the injuries, as noted by the surgeon on the body of the deceased, were not suffered by the use of any deadly weapons.

Crimes like mob lynching

Additional State Public Prosecutor Rashmi Jadhav opposed the petition, saying that the role assigned to the petitioner is different from that of other accused who have been granted bail in the case. The non-mentioning of chilli powder on the body of the deceased by the autopsy doctor or on-the-spot mahazar report would not weaken the case of prosecution, as statements of witnesses to the incident have been recorded.

Moreover, Jadhav argued, if people like the petitioner are granted bail, it will not help in curbing crimes like mob lynching.

Court findings

The bench noted that the petitioner was entitled to be granted bail on grounds of parity, as co-accused who are similarly placed in the case have been granted bail either by the sessions court or the coordinate benches of the high court.

Further, it refused to accept the prosecution’s contention that the accused Manjunatha had put chilli powder on the deceased.

The court also took note of the admitted fact that the complainant (Kumar) had filed the complaint a day after the incident, and before that, Manjunatha had filed a complaint on April 27, 2025, regarding the same incident, based on which the police registered a case of UDR.

The court said, “Even according to the FIR the incident has occurred between 3 pm to 10 pm, on April 27, 2025. The UDR report filed by the present petitioner is at 7pm on 27-04-2025. Therefore, the very mention of the incident that it lasted between 3pm to 10pm, is a doubtful and make-believe statement, in order to register the fresh complaint registered about the incident.”

The order further mentioned, “Investigation agency if found the complaint filed by petitioner is incorrect and if there is any other material evidence which they have collected whereby the incident could be treated as murder other than unnatural death, the police should have obtained necessary permission from magistrate to investigate further in the very same UDR and file the necessary chargesheet in respect of offences. Registering one more case on the same incident on the next date based on a complaint by Deepak Kumar is incorrect and against settled principles of law.”

Thereafter, the bench granted bail to the accused.