Pradeep Alias Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

CAV

This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.11 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.37/2025 of Mangaluru Rural Police registered for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), (4), 191(2), (3), 115(2), 118(2), 103(2), 238, 23, 240, 352 read with Section 190 of BNS pending in S.C.No.115/2025 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangluru.

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State, and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that as unknown person who entered the stadium and uttered the slogan "Pakistan Pakistan Zindabad". The players and persons who are watching the match have thought that he is supporting Pakistan, chased him, assaulted with hands and club and caused his death. At the most, the offence which is attracted is 304(1) and not 302 of IPC. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.04.2025. Accused Nos.6 to 10, 12 to 21 have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. Accused No.4 has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.17346/2025 by order dated 19.01.2026. The petitioner is similarly placed to that of accused No.4 who has been granted bail by this Court. The petitioner has not used any weapon to assault the deceased. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State would contend that there are totally 21 accused persons. Earlier the UDR came to be registered. Thereafter, on the complaint of one Sri.Deepak Kumar, case has been registered in Crime No.37/2025 against 19 accused persons and others for aforesaid offences. The petitioner actively participated in assaulting the deceased. The charge sheet materials indicate prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. Several persons have tried to rescue the deceased, but all accused persons assaulted him with hands and legs and caused his death. The Post Mortem report indicates that there is umpty number of injuries on the dead body of the deceased and doctor has opined that the death is due to injury to body and head and also injury to kidney. C.W.104, 106, 113, 131, 130 are eye witnesses to the incident. The case involves mob lynching. The deceased was suffering from mental disorder and he is rag picker. The deceased was under treatment in VRC hospital and Rehabilitation Center. Accused persons have caused the death of an innocent person. The bail orders granted to the other accused by the Sessions Court have been challenged and cancellation of bail has been sought. On these grounds, she prayed to reject the petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that the ground of parity is not absolute and on that point she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs ED Reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486. Learned counsel placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran @ Holo Mafatbhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat In Crl.Misc .Application No.22901/2024 dated 25.11.2024 would contend that in the case of mob lynching that took place in Gujarat during June-2024, the High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the bail application of the accused therein on the ground that common object would only be ascertained upon appreciation of evidence. The said order of the Gujarat High Court has been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the said leave to appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Gujarat High Court. Learned counsel relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sagar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh Reported in (2010) 11 SCC 444 would contend that while bail is the rule and jail the exception, parity with a co-accused cannot be the sole or mechanical ground for granting bail. Bail must be decided on an individualized assessment of the accused and the specific circumstances of the alleged offence. She further relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 would contend that parity is a guide, not a formula. Bail must consider the individual role and proximity of the offence, not mere co-accused status.

In reply, Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the statement of eyewitnesses has been recorded after 10 days of the incident. The allegation against all accused persons is common. In the Gujarat case relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the assault was by knife and it was stab injury. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and accused persons have no intention to kill the deceased. Totally 216 witnesses are cited in the charge sheet and therefore, trial will take considerable time. The petitioner is in judicial custody since last 10 months and as charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation.

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

This Court while granting bail to accused No.4 in Criminal Petition No.17346/2025 by order dated 19.01.2026 has observed as under:

"6. As per column No.17 of the charge sheet, a cricket match was going on in ground in which deceased entered and he uttered slogan "Pakistan Pakistan Zindabad". At that time the persons who were playing cricket match and persons who were watching the cricket match chased and assaulted the said deceased with hands and club and caused his death. The assault made by the club is by accused Nos.1, 2, 16 and 17. The other accused stated to have assaulted with the hands and kicked the deceased. The accused persons who have assaulted the deceased with club i.e., accused Nos.16 and 17 have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.04.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed, this petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner."

The petitioner is stated to have assaulted the deceased with hands and legs. Accused Nos.1,2, 16 and 17 are stated to have assaulted the deceased with club. Accused Nos.16 and 17 who are stated to have assaulted with club have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The deceased was rag picker and he entered the stadium where accused and others were playing cricket. Allegations against the petitioner and accused No.4 to whom this Court has granted bail are same. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. There are 216 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and to record their evidence and to complete the trial considerable time is required. Even though parity is not absolute but similarly placed accused cannot be deprived of the relief which has been granted to the other co-accused who is similarly placed to that of this petitioner. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

In the result, the following

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The petitioner -accused No.11 is granted bail in S.C.No.115/2025 arising out of Crime No.37/2025 of Mangaluru Rural Police Station pending on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D. K. Mangaluru subject to following conditions:

a) The petitioner accused No.11 shall execute a personal bond for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

b) The petitioner accused No.11 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

c) The petitioner accused No.11 shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.