Incarceration Undergone Can’t Be Termed As Long: Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Palghar Mob Lynching Case

The Bombay High Court has refused to grant bail to the accused in a case involving mob lynching at Palghar, Maharashtra in the year 2020.

A Bail Application was filed by the accused seeking release in connection with the case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 341, 427, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

A Single Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “Taking into consideration the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case, and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with or the evidence being lost otherwise, and the Applicant not being available to face the trial without undue delay, in my view, this is not a fit case nor in the interest of justice, that the Applicant should be enlarged on bail. In any case, the maximum sentence for the offence as alleged, is life imprisonment or death. Hence, the incarceration undergone cannot be termed as long incarceration, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

The Bench emphasised that the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced.

Advocate Saili Dhuru appeared for the Applicant, while Spl. PP Amit Munde and APP Poonam P. Bhosale appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

While a lockdown was ordered and enforced in Palghar district on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, on April 14, 2020, at around 10:00 pm to 10:30 pm, a group of villagers attacked a private vehicle namely a white Eeco car. There were three passengers inside the car. The Police station received a call reporting that a mob of about 400 to 500 villagers had assembled in Gadchinche, and had overturned the said Eeco car. The passengers were trapped inside and the three persons pleaded with the main assailants in the mob that they were proceeding for a funeral of their guru. However, the villagers were convinced that these passengers were thieves, abducting children from the village. The mob assaulted these three people, with wooden sticks, rods, and stones.

The mob was violent and were even pelting stones at the police van and the police personnel, which had come to rescue the persons being assaulted. The incident took an ugly turn and the police were compelled to resort to firing in the air, in an attempt to disperse the crowd. The mob, even went to the extent of assaulting the policemen, in an attempt to restrain them from reaching the persons required to be saved. All three persons succumbed to their injuries. Ultimately, the main persons in the assault were identified and arrested. The FIR was registered and the Applicant was stated to be one of the active assailants in the incident. He was, therefore, arrested.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The role of all the accused is not identical. Some are part of the mob while some are accused of overt actions. The Applicant herein is one against whom there is material to demonstrate overt acts. Thus, the arguments of Ms. Dhuru seeking relief on the principle of parity must fail.”

The Court noted that insofar as the ground of long incarceration is concerned, admittedly, the Applicant has suffered incarceration of five and half years and by an Order, he was permitted to reapply after six months.

“In this intervening period, the investigation is taken over by the CBI. … There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the Courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation”, it added.

The Court enunciated that liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case and it is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned.

“Since the Applicant has suffered incarceration of five years and it is only recently that the investigation is transferred to the CBI, the CBI is directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously and file appropriate report before the Trial Court. The Applicant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the investigation is completed by the CBI”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application and denied bail to the accused.

Cause Title- Rajesh Dhakal Rao v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57046)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Saili Dhuru

Respondents: Spl. PP Amit Munde, APP Poonam P. Bhosale, and Advocate Jai Vohra.

Click here to read/download the Judgment