[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Pradeep Alias Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14203/2025
BETWEEN :
MR. PRADEEP ALIAS PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O MOHANDASA @ MOHANA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.22-35/3, DAIRY
JYOTHI NAGARA, KUDUPU
THIRUVAIL, VAMANJUR
MANGALURU, D.K.-575 028
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VIKRAM RAJ A, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MANGALURU RURAL
POLICE STATION
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2
2. SRI. KUNJIDUTTI
MAJOR
R/AT MOOCHIKKADAN
PULPALLI, VAYANAD
KERALA-673 579
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, SPL.PP FOR R1;
SMT. MRUDULA V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF Cr.P.C. (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS)
PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL
CONDITIONALLY PENDING TRAIL IN SC NO.115/2025 FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(2),
115(2), 118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 238, 239,
240, 352 R/W 190 OF BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE VI ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K,
MANGALURU ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.37/2025 OF THE
MANGALURU RURAL P.S.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.02.2026, THIS DAY,
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
3
CAV ORDER
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.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State, and
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. 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
4
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.
4. 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
5
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.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
contend that the ground of parity is not absolute and on
6
that point she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs ED1. Learned
counsel placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kiran @ Holo Mafatbhai Parmar Vs
State of Gujarat2 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 Pradesh3
would contend that while bail is the rule and jail the
exception, parity with a co-accused cannot be the sole or
1
Reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486
2
In Crl.Misc .Application No.22901/2024 dated 25.11.2024
3
Reported in (2010) 11 SCC 444
7
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 Makwana4 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.
6. 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
4
Reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230
8
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.
7. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has
perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on
record.
8. 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
9
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
10
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.
9. 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:
11
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.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP