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.
Police crack whip against inciteful social media posts
Mangaluru (Karnataka) (PTI): Police have registered a case on their own after discovering a series of alarming and provocative posts on Instagram, allegedly aimed at inciting communal hatred, glorifying violence and threatening revenge attacks in the city.
According to the FIR, filed by Police Sub-inspector Anita Nikkam of the Kankanady Town Police Station, the officer who was monitoring social media platforms on December 2 as per the instructions of senior officials, came across multiple Instagram accounts sharing inflammatory content.
The FIR states that posts and stories on 16 Instagram accounts reportedly carried images of unknown individuals brandishing weapons, including pistols, revolvers, swords and machetes, some with their faces masked.
Police said the posts were crafted to instil fear, provoke violence, create hostility between communities and disrupt public order in Mangaluru.
The FIR states that the content appeared to be part of a larger attempt to incite hatred between religions and communities, encourage unlawful activities, and disturb peace and communal harmony.
The complaint notes that Mangaluru is a 'sensitive region', and that the posts indicated a coordinated attempt to create fear, trigger riots, conspiracies and criminal acts through social media.
Police have initiated action under relevant sections of law and are tracing the individuals behind the Instagram accounts.
Further investigation is under way.
