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.
Karnataka govt directs municipal corps to regulate, prohibit pigeon feeding
Bengaluru (PTI): The Karnataka government has issued directions to municipal corporations across the state to regulate and prohibit feeding pigeons in public places, citing serious public health concerns.
Deputy Secretary to Government V Lakshmikanth has written to the Urban Development Department requesting it to issue directions to the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) and all municipal corporations to take immediate steps to implement the measures.
In an official note dated December 16 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department and released to the media on Wednesday, the department said uncontrolled feeding of pigeons in public places has resulted in large congregations of birds, excessive droppings and serious health concerns, particularly respiratory illnesses linked to prolonged exposure to pigeon droppings and feathers such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis and other lung diseases.
ALSO READ: Chinese GPS tracker found on seagull near Karwar Coast
"The commissioner, the Greater Bengaluru Authority and the Commissioners and chief officers of other municipal corporations shall take necessary action to mitigate the causes of dangerous disease spread by pigeon and enforce specified guidelines in their respective jurisdiction," the note said.
According to the department, these include a prohibition on feeding pigeons or causing pigeons to be fed in areas where it may cause nuisance or pose a health hazard to the public. Pigeon feeding shall be permitted only in designated areas in a controlled manner, subject to certain conditions.
"The designated areas may be selected in consultation with stakeholders. The responsibility for upkeep of the designated areas and compliance to the directions shall be taken up by some charitable organisation or an NGO. The feeding in designated areas shall be permitted only for some limited hours in the day," it said.
The note further stated that authorised officers of local authorities shall issue on-the-spot warnings and may impose fines for violation of the order, or lodge complaints to prosecute offenders under Sections 271 (Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) and 272 (Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It also directed local authorities to conduct public awareness campaigns, including the display of signboards, banners and digital messages, explaining the health hazards associated with pigeon droppings and feathers, the content of the regulatory directions and penalties for violations, and alternative humane methods of bird conservation that do not endanger public health.
