Karnataka High Court rejects accused's bail application in RSS worker's murder case

In judicial custody for the past nine and a half years under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the accused filed successive applications seeking bail to attend the death rituals of his sister.

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the order of a special court for NIA cases rejecting the bail application filed by an accused in the RSS worker Rudresh murder case. The accused Irfan Pasha, in judicial custody for the past nine and a half years under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), had filed successive applications seeking bail to attend the death rituals of his sister.

Irfan Pasha’s sister had died on March 30, 2026, and on April 16, 2026, the trial court had allowed his application to attend the 10th to 13th-day prayer ceremony. On April 30, 2026, the special court rejected his successive application noting that it had already granted interim bail for three days. Irfan Pasha filed an appeal against this order.

After perusing the material, a division bench comprising Justices Sachin Shankar Magadum and Rajesh Rai K noted that the Trial Court had observed that the successive application did not indicate any cogent reason as to why a similar prayer had to be entertained once again. The trial court had further noted there is every possibility that the appellant would delay and frustrate the proceedings if the interim bail is granted.

“Since the appellant has filed the present application to attend 40th day prayer ceremony of his deceased sister, that too, immediately after his earlier application being considered and granted by the Trial Court vide order dated April 16, 2026 to attend 10th to 13th -day prayer ceremony, the present application has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court as there was no cogent reason assigned by the appellant as to why the similar application has to be entertained once again and as the trial of the case being at the fag-end and that the offences alleged against the appellant being serious in nature," the division bench said.

"In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the Trial Court vide impugned order has rightly rejected the application of the appellant for interim bail, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed,” it added.