Bail granted on grounds of parity and lack of pre-meditation in Kudupu cricket match incident; court notes procedural irregularities in complaint registrations.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice V. Srishananda, has granted bail to Sri Manjunatha, accused in a mob lynching case that arose from a cricket match incident in Kudupu Village, Mangaluru. The judgment, delivered on May 7, 2026, emphasized the lack of pre-meditation and the spur-of-the-moment nature of the crime, which led to the tragic death of an unknown individual, later identified as Mohammad Ashraf.
The case, registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, involved allegations against 21 individuals, including Manjunatha, accused of assaulting the victim following provocative slogans raised by him. The court noted that the incident occurred spontaneously during the cricket match, with no deadly weapons involved, which mitigated the gravity of the offense.
Justice Srishananda granted bail on the ground of parity, as other co-accused had already secured bail. The ruling highlighted procedural irregularities in the registration of complaints, noting that the complainant Deepak Kumar's FIR was filed a day after Manjunatha's report, which initially registered the incident as an unnatural death report (UDR). The court criticized the police for registering a separate crime without seeking the necessary magistrate's permission to investigate further under the same UDR, calling it a deviation from settled legal principles.
The court imposed strict conditions on the bail, requiring Manjunatha to execute a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, attend court regularly, refrain from tampering with evidence, and remain within the jurisdiction of Dakshina Kannada District unless permitted otherwise. The judgment underscored that any violation of these conditions would lead to bail cancellation.
This ruling comes amidst broader discussions on mob violence and lynching, with the court referencing notable Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the seriousness of such offenses. However, the court distinguished the current case from typical mob lynching scenarios due to the lack of pre-concert or pre-determination among the accused to attack the victim.
The decision has been met with mixed reactions, with advocates for the prosecution expressing concerns about the implications for mob violence deterrence. Meanwhile, Manjunatha's counsel welcomed the judgment, highlighting the court's acknowledgment of procedural lapses and lack of substantial evidence against their client.
The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in adjudicating mob violence incidents, balancing legal principles with societal concerns. As the trial progresses, the focus remains on ensuring justice while upholding the rule of law.
Bottom line:-
Bail granted to accused in mob lynching case on grounds of parity and lack of pre-meditation in the alleged offense. It was observed that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment, and no deadly weapon was used. The court also noted procedural irregularities in the registration of multiple complaints for the same incident.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(2), 103(2), 238, 239, 240, 352, 190
Sri. Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2894926
