Bombay High Court: In a bail application arising out of the Palghar mob lynching incident, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., held that the applicant was not entitled to bail either on the ground of parity with co-accused already released or on account of long incarceration. The Court observed that the applicant’s distinct and graver role, established through CCTV footage and corroborated by witnesses, made the case unsuitable for bail, and accordingly dismissed the application while reserving liberty to renew the prayer after completion of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’).
Background:
The incident occurred during the lockdown enforced in Palghar district on account of the Covid-19 pandemic. A mob of about 400 to 500 villagers attacked a private vehicle, overturned it, and brutally assaulted three passengers inside, who succumbed to their injuries. The mob also assaulted police personnel who attempted to rescue the victims. The applicant was arrested and charge-sheeted along with others.
The applicant submitted that bail was sought essentially on two grounds:
-
parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail, and
-
long incarceration of five and a half years.
It was argued that the incident was a mob lynching on the spur of the moment, without intention to murder, and that the role attributed to the applicant was similar to others already released. It was further contended that at best, the alleged offence against the applicant attracted Section 353 IPC, with a maximum punishment of two years, and that there were no witnesses directly implicating him beyond affirming his presence.
The prosecution opposed the plea, pointing to CCTV footage and witness statements showing the applicant carrying an iron axe, hurling stones, brutally beating the deceased, slashing the car bonnet, assaulting police personnel, and inciting the mob to continue the assault. It was submitted that the acts were serious, attracting punishment of life imprisonment or death, and hence bail should be rejected.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the material compiled against the applicant was based on the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, matching reference photographs with the image of the applicant in CCTV footage and video, thereby providing sufficient material to implicate him. The Court held that the principle of parity would not apply.
The Court highlighted that the role of all accused was not identical, distinguishing between those who were part of the mob and those who committed overt acts. The Court noted that the applicant herein was one against whom there was material to demonstrate overt acts. Thus, the arguments of seeking relief on the principle of parity must fail. The Court further highlighted that the applicant’s actions were much graver than those of co-accused who had been granted bail, as he was identified by witnesses and captured on CCTV committing overt acts of violence, including beating the deceased with wooden sticks and an iron axe, thrashing the overturned car, assaulting police personnel, and inciting the mob.
The Court referred to Narayanaswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 1066, wherein it was held that simply because the co accused has been granted bail also cannot be the sole criteria for granting bail to another accused if they are standing on different footings. The Court further relied on Subires Bhattacharya v. CBI, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 11889, where it was observed that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage when the bail application of a co-accused is allowed.
The Court emphasised that liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts but such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation, hence, the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. It was also noted that the liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case however 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.
The Court further observed that since the maximum sentence prescribed for the alleged offences is life imprisonment or death, the period of custody already undergone cannot be regarded as long incarceration. Considering the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the crime, the apprehension of witnesses being influenced or evidence tampered with, and the distinct role of the applicant, the Court concluded that this was not a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed, though liberty was reserved for the applicant to renew the prayer after completion of investigation by the CBI.
[Rajesh Dhakal Rao v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 3043 of 2025, decided on 23-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Saili Dhuru, Advocate
For the State: Poonam P. Bhosale, APP, Amit Munde with Jai Vohra, Advocates