DATE: 19/01/2026
COURT: High Court of
Karnataka
BENCH: Justice
Shivashankar Amarannavar
FACTS:
The petitioner, arrayed as accused No.4,
filed the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of bail in Crime No.37/2025 registered by Mangaluru
Rural Police. The case pertains to an incident that occurred during a cricket
match, where an unknown person entered the stadium and allegedly raised the
slogan “Pakistan Pakistan Zindabad.” This led to a reaction from the players
and spectators present at the ground, who chased and assaulted the said individual.
As a result of the assault, the person sustained injuries and later succumbed
to them.
According to the prosecution, multiple
accused persons participated in the assault. The charge-sheet indicates that
some accused assaulted the deceased with clubs, while others assaulted him with
hands and kicks. The petitioner was alleged to have procured chilli powder
along with accused No.3, thrown it into the eyes and body of the deceased,
instigated other accused to assault him, and also participated in the assault.
The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.04.2025. After completion
of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed as S.C.
No.115/2025 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru.
ISSUES:
The principal issue before the Court was
whether the petitioner–accused No.4 was entitled to be released on bail,
considering the nature of his alleged role in the assault leading to the death
of the deceased, the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the
absence of criminal antecedents, and the circumstance that several co-accused,
including those alleged to have assaulted the deceased with clubs, had already
been granted bail by the Sessions Court.
JUDGEMENT WITH
REASONING:
The High Court allowed the criminal
petition and granted bail to the petitioner–accused No.4 in S.C. No.115/2025
arising out of Crime No.37/2025, subject to conditions. The Court directed the
petitioner to execute a personal bond with surety, not to tamper with prosecution
witnesses, and to regularly appear before the trial court and cooperate in the
expeditious disposal of the case.
The Court examined the charge-sheet
materials, particularly column No.17, which described the incident as a
collective assault by players and spectators following the slogan raised by the
deceased. The Court noted that the specific act of assault with clubs was
attributed to accused Nos.1, 2, 16, and 17, while the remaining accused were
alleged to have assaulted the deceased with hands and kicks. Significantly,
accused Nos.16 and 17, who were alleged to have used clubs, had already been
granted bail by the Sessions Court. In this context, the role attributed to the
present petitioner was not considered graver than that of the co-accused who
had already secured bail.
The Court further observed that the
petitioner had been in judicial custody since 29.04.2025 and that the
investigation was complete, with the charge-sheet already filed. Consequently,
his continued custodial detention was not necessary for further investigation.
The Court also took into account the absence of any criminal antecedents
against the petitioner. Balancing these factors, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the petitioner had made
out a case for grant of bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his
presence at trial and to prevent interference with the prosecution witnesses.
ANALYSIS:
The High Court’s analysis reflects a
consistent application of bail jurisprudence, particularly the principles of
parity, proportionality of role, and necessity of custody. While the
allegations against the petitioner included instigation and participation in
the assault, the Court carefully compared his role with that of the co-accused.
It found that the charge-sheet specifically attributed the more severe act of
assault with clubs to other accused persons, some of whom had already been
granted bail by the Sessions Court. On this basis, the Court applied the
doctrine of parity, holding that the petitioner’s role could not be treated as
more serious than that of co-accused who had already secured bail, especially
at the pre-trial stage.
The Court also emphasized that bail is not
to be used as a form of pre-trial punishment. Since the investigation had
concluded and the charge-sheet was filed, the petitioner’s continued
incarceration was not required for custodial interrogation. The absence of
criminal antecedents further reduced the risk of recidivism or misuse of
liberty. Balancing the gravity of the offence with the petitioner’s right to
personal liberty under criminal procedural law, the Court concluded that the
objectives of justice could be met by imposing strict conditions. The decision
thus underscores that even in serious offences involving loss of life,
prolonged detention is unwarranted where the evidentiary role is limited,
co-accused are already on bail, and procedural safeguards can adequately
protect the trial process.
info@adhwaitha.com