Karnataka High Court Grants Bail In Mob Lynching Case Over “Pakistan” Slogans Raised In Wake Of Pahalgam Attack

The Court observed that the incident appeared to have occurred at the spur of the moment and that no deadly weapons had been used in the assault.

The Court was hearing a bail petition filed by the third accused in a sessions case arising out of allegations that a mob assaulted a man to death after he allegedly disrupted a cricket match by raising pro-Pakistan slogans shortly after the Pahalgam terror attack.

A Bench of Justice V. Srishananda observed: “Being enraged with the raising of that slogan, in the wake of the Pahalgam attack which had occurred in the recent past, the public who had gathered to watch the cricket game, including the players, started chasing the deceased. The deceased ran towards the temple to escape from the probable attack. But the mob followed and chased him. Near the temple, the deceased was attacked. In such an attack, some kicked him and some assaulted him with their hands, and a few more broke the tree branches and assaulted the deceased with those tree branches. In other words, in the whole incident, no deadly weapon is used”.

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam M appeared for the petitioner. Additional SPP Rashmi Jadhav & Advocate Mrudula appeared for the respondents.

Background

According to the prosecution, a cricket match was being played at a temple ground on 27 April 2025 when an unknown person allegedly entered the ground from the railway track side and began raising slogans of “Pakistan Pakistan”.

The prosecution alleged that the persons playing and watching the match became enraged by the slogans and began chasing the deceased, who ran towards a nearby temple in an attempt to escape.

The complaint alleged that after the deceased fell while trying to flee, the gathered crowd assaulted him by kicking and beating him, while some persons allegedly used tree branches during the attack.

The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3. According to the charge sheet, he allegedly brought chilli powder from his house and sprinkled it on the wounds and private parts of the deceased.

The trial court had rejected the bail application of the petitioner and another accused in December 2025. However, another accused was subsequently granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the High Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioner sought bail on the grounds of parity as well as on merits, contending that there was no material corroborating the allegation regarding the use of chilli powder.

Court’s Observation

The High Court noted that all other accused persons had already been enlarged on bail either by the trial court or by coordinate Benches of the High Court. The Court observed that no deadly weapon had been used during the incident and held that the gravity of the offence stood reduced on that count.

The Bench further noted that the autopsy surgeon had not found traces of chilli powder on the body of the deceased and that the prosecution had failed to point out any seizure of chilli powder from the spot. The Court observed that, according to the prosecution itself, the incident had occurred spontaneously after the deceased allegedly entered the cricket ground and raised slogans.

The Bench noted that the deceased and the accused persons were strangers to each other and there was no material suggesting any prior enmity, conspiracy or pre-planned attack.

The Court also recorded prima facie concerns regarding the manner in which two separate reports had been registered in relation to the same incident, observing that the subsequent FIR appeared inconsistent with settled principles governing investigation.

Referring to the prosecution's case, the Court observed that the complainant himself had initially attempted to pacify the crowd but later went home without immediately reporting the incident to the police.

The Bench further observed that the petitioner had remained in custody since April 2025 and that the charge sheet cited as many as 216 witnesses, indicating that the trial would likely take considerable time.

The Bench remarked: “Fact remains that the petitioner and the deceased were unknown to each other and they were strangers. Therefore, the objections raised on behalf of the prosecution and the decisions relied on by the counsel for respondent No.2, in opposing the bail request even on the ground of parity, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be countenanced in law in view of the materials collected by the Investigating Agency in form the charge sheet”.

While clarifying that observations made at the stage of bail would not affect the merits of the trial, the Court held that no compelling reasons existed to continue the petitioner in judicial custody.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the bail petition and directed the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to conditions.

The Court directed the petitioner to execute a bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties and further directed that he shall regularly attend court proceedings, refrain from tampering with witnesses and not leave the jurisdictional district without prior permission.

The Bench clarified that violation of any of the imposed conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

Cause Title: Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:24648)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam M for Suyog Herele E

Respondents: Additional SPP Rashmi Jadhav for State; Advocate Mrudula for Respondent No.2

Click here to read/download Order