Procedural lapses noted, but liberty of accused maintained; State directed to formulate interim compensation scheme
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the bail granted to the accused in a high-profile mob lynching case, despite procedural lapses in the initial bail proceedings. The case, which involved the death of an individual named Ashraf following a mob assault during a cricket match, has drawn significant attention due to its implications on the rule of law and mob violence in India.
Presiding Judge Mr. Vijaykumar A. Patil noted that the Sessions Court had committed a procedural error by not issuing a notice to the next of kin of the deceased before granting bail. This oversight, however, was deemed insufficient to cancel the bail since no violations of bail conditions or further criminal conduct by the accused were reported.
The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance, referencing the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla case, which mandates that victims or their families must be notified and heard during bail proceedings in mob lynching cases. Despite this procedural lapse, the court decided against revoking the bail, citing the completed filing of the charge sheet, the bail granted to co-accused by a co-ordinate bench, and the absence of any new criminal allegations against the accused.
Additionally, the court directed the State of Karnataka to establish a scheme for interim compensation to victims or their next of kin within three months, adhering to the Supreme Court's directives. This measure aims to provide timely financial relief to those affected by mob violence.
The decision not to cancel the bail took into account several factors: the charges had been filed, the co-accused were also granted bail, and the Supreme Court had previously rejected appeals against the bail of certain accused. Furthermore, the court highlighted the need to avoid further delays in case proceedings, emphasizing the importance of preserving the liberty of the accused in the absence of compelling reasons to restrict it.
The court's ruling underscores the delicate balance between ensuring procedural justice and safeguarding individual liberties, particularly in cases involving serious allegations like mob lynching. The judgment also reiterates the necessity for judicial adherence to procedural norms to prevent miscarriages of justice.
In conclusion, while the bail orders were upheld, the court's directives for procedural improvements and victim compensation reflect an ongoing commitment to addressing the broader issues surrounding mob violence and ensuring justice for all parties involved.
Bottom Line :
Mob lynching - Procedural lapses in granting bail without issuing notice to the next of kin of the deceased render the order granting bail vitiated. However, liberty of the accused cannot be curtailed solely on procedural lapses when there is no allegation of violation of bail conditions or further criminal conduct.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 103(2), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 191(3), 240; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Abdul Jabbar v. Sachin, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2967812
