Bail denied for three accused in Kudupu mob lynching case
Court cites heinous nature of crime, tampering concerns
Mangaluru: The Second Additional District and Sessions Judge of Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, Sri. Jagadeesh V.N., today rejected the bail petitions of three individuals seeking release in connection with the mob lynching incident in Kudupu on April 27, 2025. The order, issued in Crl.Misc./457/2025, pertains to petitioners Saideep (29), Anil Kumar (31) and Yathiraj (27), who were seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The case stems from Crime No. 37/2025 registered at the Mangaluru Rural Police station for offences punishable under Sections 103 (2), 115 (2), 189 (2), 191 (1), 191 (3), 240 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The advocate for the petitioners argued that the incident occurred in a mob setting after the unknown person raised a slogan. He contended that the petitioners never specifically assaulted the deceased as alleged.
He also highlighted that an UDR case was initially registered, suggesting the subsequent case was false. The counsel further pointed out that the complaint only mentioned that the gathered individuals assaulted the person with their hands. He also brought to the court's attention that the same court had already granted bail to some other accused persons facing similar accusations, arguing that the present petitioners should be treated similarly.
The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition, stating that the incident constituted communal violence. SPP argued that the complainant clearly named the petitioners as being involved in the assault with hands and sticks. The provisional postmortem report indicated that the death was caused by blunt force injuries. The prosecution further submitted that the investigation revealed mobile phones of the accused were recovered, containing recordings and photographs of the incident.
These were analysed, allegedly showing the petitioners assaulting the deceased. Call records also reportedly placed the petitioners at the scene.
The Investigating Officer's report, submitted by the prosecution, claimed that before the assault, the deceased was stripped naked. Photographs reportedly showed the accused assaulting the naked person with clubs and hands. The report also alleged that after the assault, the deceased was taken near a railway track and disposed of to destroy evidence and facilitate the filing of a 'C' report (closure report) by the police.
The Investigating Officer also indicated that some absconding accused, some who were released on bail, and some who were not yet arrested had attempted to destroy evidence and tamper with prosecution witnesses. The prosecution argued that releasing the petitioners on bail at this stage would undoubtedly lead to further witness tampering and the commission of similar offenses, thus hindering the ongoing investigation.
After hearing both sides and examining the records, the court formulated two points for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioners had presented reasonable grounds to be enlarged on bail? and 2. What order should be passed? The court's finding on the first point was "Negative," leading to the order of rejection.
While acknowledging that the court had previously granted bail to some accused facing similar allegations, the judge emphasised that the subsequent investigation revealed the offense to be a "heinous offence" committed by a gang. The court found the investigating agency's apprehension of witness tampering and hindrance to further investigation to be "acceptable" given the material presented.
The court also noted that police custody of some accused had been obtained for further investigation, and the investigating agency still needed to collect significant evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Based on the evidence currently on record, the court concluded that there was a prima facie case against the petitioners. Given the gravity and seriousness of the offense, the court deemed it not a fit case to exercise the discretion of granting bail under Section 483 of B.N.S.S.
Consequently, the court rejected the bail petition filed by Saideep, Anil Kumar and Yathiraj.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
ED arrests Sandeepa Virk, 'cosmetologist' for alleged money laundering
New Delhi, Aug 13 (PTI): The Enforcement Directorate said on Wednesday it has arrested a woman, who claims to be an actor and a cosmetologist, under the anti-money laundering law in a case of alleged fraud and misrepresentation.
The agency said the purported links of the woman, Sandeepa Virk, with a Reliance Group executive, Angarai Natarajan Sethuraman (President, Corporate Affairs), are also under its scanner. Sethuraman, in a statement, denied any connection with Virk or any transactions related to her.
Virk was taken into custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on Tuesday after searches were conducted against her and her associates in Delhi and Mumbai over the last two days.
A special court sent her to the ED's custody till August 14, the agency said. The woman claims to be the owner of a skin care products selling website named hyboocare.com, which the ED claimed was a "front" for money laundering.
She and her associates are being probed for allegedly exerting undue influence through "misrepresentation" and "defrauding" individuals by soliciting money under false pretences.
According to an Instagram ID of Virk, she is an actor and entrepreneur and the founder of the said website.
The federal agency said in a statement that the woman was also "in touch with" Sethuraman, former director of erstwhile Reliance Capital Limited.
She was communicating with him regarding "illegal liaisoning", the ED claimed, adding that the searches at Sethuraman's residence "confirmed" these allegations.
"Besides, diversion of funds for personal benefit has also been unearthed during the course of the search action," it said.
The ED alleged that public money worth about Rs 18 crore belonging to Reliance Commercial Finance Limited (RCFL) was disbursed to Sethuraman in 2018 by "flouting" prudent lending norms.
The funds were lent under terms that allowed a deferment of the principal amount as well as the interest, with multiple waivers granted and no due diligence conducted, it said.
The ED claimed that besides this, a home loan of Rs 22 crore was provided by Reliance Capital Limited by "violating" the prudential norms. "A large part of these loans are seen to have been eventually siphoned off and remained unpaid," it alleged.
Sethuraman, in a statement, dismissed the allegations as "baseless". He denied any connection with Virk or any transactions related to her.
Detailing about Virk's web portal, the agency said it purportedly sold FDA-approved beauty products. However, the ED said the products listed on the website have been found to be non-existent and the portal lacks a user registration option and is plagued by persistent payment gateway issues.
A scrutiny of the website uncovered minimal social-media engagement, an inactive WhatsApp contact number and an absence of transparent organisational details, all of which reinforce the finding of "non-genuine" commercial activity, the ED claimed.
"These factors, including limited product range, inflated pricing, false claims of FDA approval and technical inconsistencies, indicate that the website serves as a front for laundering funds," it said.
Another social media-hosted bio data of the woman said she is a certified cosmetologist.
The ED said several "incriminating" documents were seized during the searches and the statement of a man named Farrukh Ali, stated to be an associate of Virk, was recorded.
The money-laundering case stems from an FIR lodged by the Punjab Police.
Sethuraman said that the home loan he received from Reliance Capital was granted following due process and was secured by the property offered as collateral.
