Karnataka ordered to create interim compensation scheme and ensure victim notice in mob-lynching cases

On 27 April 2025, during a cricket match organised by “Amazing Friends Konguru, Kulashekara” at Kudupu, Mangaluru, deceased Ashraf allegedly raised the slogan “Pakistan, Pakistan.” The accused and others followed, surrounded and assaulted him, causing injuries that resulted in his death.

A case was registered in Crime No. 37/2025 under Sections 103(2), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 191(3) and 240 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The accused sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The Sessions Court granted bail to different accused by orders dated 31 May 2025, 5 June 2025 and 6 June 2025, principally relying on parity with co-accused, the absence of certain accused from the original FIR, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The State and the deceased’s next of kin challenged the bail orders under Section 483(3) BNSS, contending that the Sessions Court had failed to issue notice to or hear the deceased’s next of kin, contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India.

The charge-sheet had already been filed, and there was no allegation that the accused had violated bail conditions or committed any subsequent offence.

1. Whether the failure of the Sessions Court to issue timely notice to and hear the deceased’s next of kin before granting bail in an alleged mob-lynching case vitiated the bail orders?

2. Whether the bail orders were liable to be set aside or cancelled because the Sessions Court relied principally on parity, absence from the FIR, and lack of criminal antecedents without adequately applying the settled bail principles?

3. Whether the State was required to formulate a scheme providing interim compensation to victims or the next of kin of victims of mob violence or lynching?

The Court applied Section 483(3) BNSS, corresponding to the power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) CrPC, and the bail principles under Section 483 BNSS.

Section 103(2) BNS criminalises murder committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on specified grounds, including community, language, personal belief or similar factors, with severe punishment.

Under Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501, victims or the next of kin in mob-violence and lynching cases must receive timely notice of court proceedings and have the right to be heard in bail, discharge, release and parole proceedings; the State must also provide a victim-compensation scheme containing interim relief.

Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, holds that denial of the victim’s right to participate, reliance on irrelevant considerations, or a mechanically granted bail order may justify setting aside bail and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, without foreclosing the accused’s right to seek bail.

Under Y v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, bail must be granted through judicial application of mind after considering prima facie involvement, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, flight risk, criminal antecedents, witness tampering and the possibility of justice being frustrated; an appellate court may interfere where the bail order is illegal, perverse, arbitrary or suffers from non-application of mind.

The Court also recognised the distinction between setting aside an illegal or unjustified bail order and cancelling bail for supervening circumstances or breach of conditions.

The Court held that the Sessions Court had committed a grave procedural error by granting bail without issuing notice to or hearing the deceased’s next of kin, contrary to paragraph 40.20 of Tehseen S. Poonawalla.

Nevertheless, the Court declined to set aside the bail orders. It considered that the charge-sheet had already been filed, eliminating the need for custodial interrogation; co-ordinate Benches had granted bail to similarly placed co-accused after hearing the deceased’s next of kin; and the Supreme Court had declined to interfere with bail granted to two other accused in the same case.

Since the alleged offence was collective in nature, parity could legitimately be considered where the factual allegations and charges against the accused were substantially identical.

The Court further noted that remanding the accused for a fresh bail hearing would cause additional delay in a case that ought to be tried expeditiously, while there was no allegation of breach of bail conditions, witness tampering, subsequent criminal conduct or other misconduct.

The Court therefore balanced the deceased’s procedural right to participation against the accused’s personal liberty and concluded that the procedural lapse, though serious, did not warrant curtailment of liberty in the circumstances.

As to compensation, the Court found that the State’s existing Government Order dated 27 September 2023 did not contain a specific provision for interim compensation payable within thirty days, as required by Tehseen S. Poonawalla.

It accordingly directed the State to formulate an appropriate scheme.

It upheld the bail already granted, while recording that the Sessions Court had erred in failing to notify and hear the deceased’s next of kin.

The Court directed the Registrar General/Registrar (Judicial) to circulate the judgment to all Principal District Judges and Sessions Judges for mandatory compliance with the victim-participation and mob-violence guidelines.

The State Government was directed to formulate, within three months, a scheme providing interim compensation to victims or the next of kin of victims of mob violence or lynching and to file a compliance report.

The High Court and subordinate courts were further directed to ensure that victims or next of kin are impleaded or otherwise notified in such proceedings, and the Sessions Court was directed to endeavour to complete the trial expeditiously in accordance with Tehseen S. Poonawalla.