Mob Lynching Cases: Karnataka High Court Seeks Interim Victim Compensation Scheme, Mandates Notice To Victim's Kin In Bail Hearings
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed multiple pleas seeking cancellation of bail granted to persons accused in a mob lynching case over the victim allegedly chanting pro-Pakistan slogans, while also issuing directions to ensure compliance with the apex court guidelines in Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India with respect to interim compensation and issuing notice to victim's kin. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 317]
The single bench of Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil also iterated the guidelines issued in Tehseen Poonawalla and demanded its strict compliance, including grant of interim compensation and notice to be issued to the victim or victim's kin before granting bail to accused in mob lynching/violence cases.
“…The Government Order…. along with the memo [filed by the state on compliance with Tehseen Poonawalla]] indicates the compensation to be provided to the victims or the next of kin of the victims. However, it is to be noticed that the said order does not contain any provision for grant of interim compensation to the victim or the next of his/her kin as per the guidelines in the case of TEHSEEN S POONAWALLA, referred supra. Hence, I am of the considered view that the State is required to be directed to formulate a scheme to inculcate the provision for interim compensation to the victims or the next of their kin in consonance with the guidelines in the case of TEHSEEN S POONAWALLA…”, the court said.
For context, the next of kin argued that the apex court guidelines mandate formulation of a scheme for computation of compensation for the victim. It was argued that the said scheme must also have provision for interim relief to be paid to the victims or to the next of kin of the deceased within a period of thirty days of the incident of mob violence or lynching, however, no such scheme for granting interim compensation has been formulated by the State.
“…The State Government is directed to formulate a scheme for grant of interim compensation to the victim or the next of kin of the victim within 3 months of passing of this order and file compliance report before this Court…”, the accordingly noted in the order.
Read Supreme Court Guidelines Here.
On the other aspect, the court also noted that though the Sessions Court committed a 'grave error' by failing to issue timely notice to the next of kin of the deceased before granting bail, though that in itself would not warrant interference of the bail order.
“…The Registrar (Judicial) shall issue necessary circular to the concerned branches in the High Court with a direction to raise objections, if the victim is not arrayed as a party in cases involving mob violence or lynching…. The Principal District Judges shall issue necessary circular to the concerned branches with a direction to raise objections, if the victim is not arrayed as a party in cases involving mob violence or lynching. …”, the court said.
“…In order to set aside an order granting bail, the Court has to analyse whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary, whereas on the other hand, in order to cancel a grant of bail, it needs to look at whether supervening circumstances have occurred warranting cancellation such as if there was any violation of bail conditions”, it added.
The court, for its decision not to interfere with the bail order, reasoned that the that charge sheet had already been filed, and there is a time limit of 6 months for disposal of cases involving mob violence instead of back and forth with the bail application, and that other accused had been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the court on the same set of circumstances.
“……Though the ground of parity cannot be mechanically applied to co-accused while granting them bail, the Court must investigate the role of the accused. However, in the instant case, the crime of mob violence and lynching is collective in nature, and no specific role can be assigned to an accused and the facts and charges against the co-accused to whom bail was granted by this Co-ordinate Bench and the accused in the instant case are one and the same”, the court clarified further.
The court also opined that the liberty should be curtailed only in exceptional circumstances, and in the instant case, though due procedure has not been followed, the accused have not violated any bail conditions.
Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam appeared for the accused and SPP BN Jagadeesh appeared foe the state. Advocate Clifton D Rozario appeared for the next of kin.
To recap, according to the Prosecution, during a local cricket tournament at Managaluru, the victim, who was a rag picker from Kerala, allegedly chanted Pakistan slogans that triggered players and spectators. The accused persons allegedly stripped the deceased and assaulted him with sticks and other objects, as a result of which he succumbed to death.
The Mangaluru Rural Police Station had filed an FIR against 20 persons, allegedly part of the mob, for offences under Sections 103(2) (murder), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 189(2)/(4) (unlawful assembly), 191(2)/(3) (rioting), 238, 239, 240 (causing disappearance of evidence, false information, etc.), 352 (criminal intimidation) r/w 190 (common object) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The accused in the present case were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in May and June 2025.
The State and Abdul Jabbar, brother of the deceased Ashraf, filed multiple petitions challenging the bail orders.
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition Nos. 10339/2025, 10314/2025, 10321/2025, 15550/2025, 16275/2025, 16338/2025, 16367/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 317