Mob Lynching U/S 103(2) BNS More Serious Than Ordinary Murder: Kerala High Court Cancels Bail Of 8 Accused In Walayar Lynching Case
Court noted previous bail order was passed in violation of the mandatory provision under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has set aside the bail granted to eight accused in the brutal Walayar mob lynching case, involving the murder of Ram Narayan Bhagel, a 40-year-old native of Jharkhand, noting that the legislature intended to treat the offence under Section 103(2) of BNS, 2023 as more serious.
The Court emphasised that the previous bail order was passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (SC/ST (POA) Act), which requires that victims or their dependents be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in proceedings under the Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “It is relevant to note that the offence of murder is punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short). When the BNS, 2023 has been substituted in the place of IPC, the punishment for murder has been incorporated under Section 103 of the BNS, 2023. Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023, provides punishment for the offence of murder defined under Section 101 of BNS, 2023. Section 103(2) of BNS, 2023 is a new provision introduced and the intent behind the legislation of this provision is to meet a situation when a murder is committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus the legislature intended to treat the offence under Section 103(2) of BNS, 2023 as more serious. The intention of the legislation is to avoid the peril of murder by mob lynching. Even before the introduction of Section 103(2) of BNS, 2023, in a three Bench decision of the Apex Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2018 KHC 6513”.
“…it is shocking to note that the learned Special Judge when dealt with a serious case of murder of a member of Scheduled Caste community by mob lynching inattentively and thoughtlessly granted bail even without issuing notice to ensure mandatory hearing of the dependent of the victim in this case. This is a very serious lapse on the part of the Special Judge and the same should not have happened and the learned Special Judge shall be more vigilant hereinafter when dealing with cases of this nature”, it further remarked.
Vipin Narayan, Senior Public Prosecutor appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sooraj Krishnan K.V. appeared for the respondent.
The matter pertained to an incident on December 17, 2025, when Bhagel, who had arrived in Kerala just days earlier in search of work, was attacked and killed by a mob. The accused, who acted with common intention, were charged under Sections 103(1) and 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023), addressing murder and mob lynching, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.
The Special Judge had earlier granted regular bail to accused Nos.1 to 8 after their custodial periods ranging from 25 to 43 days. The judge reasoned that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and that further detention was unnecessary.
However, the High Court noted that the Special Judge failed to hear the dependent of the victim, the victim’s brother, who is also impleaded as respondent No.9 in the appeal, thereby ignoring the statutory mandate of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Highlighting the gravity of the case, the Court observed that Sections 103(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8(c) of the SC/ST (POA) Act impose strict provisions for crimes committed by groups and include a statutory presumption regarding the knowledge of caste identity of the victim.
The Court further noted that several of the accused, particularly accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9, had prior criminal records, which made the premature grant of bail especially problematic for the ongoing investigation.
“…When considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, to grant of anticipatory bail, the legal position is well settled that when the prosecution materials do not prima facie show commission of the offence, the bar would not apply. However, when a court is considering a proceeding where offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 are involved, in order to decide as to whether the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, offences would attract or not, also should not be decided unilaterally. For the said purpose also, issuance of notice under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, to the victim or his dependent, as the case may be, is mandatory. In the absence of notice and opportunity of hearing to the victim or his dependent, in such cases a Special Court or any other court is not empowered to take any decision in any proceedings under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018…”, the Bench further noted.
As a result, the Court allowed the prosecution appeal, cancelled the bail of all eight accused, and directed them to surrender to the jurisdictional court within three days. The jurisdictional court has been instructed to ensure their detention in accordance with the law.
The Court clarified that the accused may file fresh bail applications, but the court must strictly comply with Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, ensuring that the dependent of the victim is heard before any decision is made.
Cause Title: State Of Kerala v. Anu & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:24661]
Appearances:
Appellant: Vipin Narayan, Sr. Public Prosecutor.
Respondents: Sooraj Krishnan K.V., C. Dheeraj Rajan, Mahesh V. Menon, A.V. Ravi, E.A. Haris, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Libin Varghese, M.A. Ahammad Saheer, Muhammed Yasil, Aagi Johny, Ifra Iqbal Sr PP Vipin Narayanan. A, Advocates.