Bail Under Section 439 CrPC: Bombay HC Dismisses Plea, Rejects Parity Where Overt Acts Exceed Co-accused - 2025-12-23

Beyond the Crowd: Why the Bombay High Court Denied Bail in the Palghar Lynching Case

In a significant ruling that clarifies the limits of the "principle of parity" in criminal jurisprudence, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the bail application of Rajesh Dhakal Rao, a key accused in the notorious 2020 Palghar mob lynching incident. Justice Neela Gokhale, presiding over the matter, emphasized that when it comes to grave offences, individual culpability—not mere membership in a mob—dictates the judicial approach to personal liberty.

The Shadow of April 2020

The case stems from a tragic incident on April 14, 2020, during the height of the national Covid-19 lockdown. A mob of 400 to 500 villagers in Palghar, fueled by rumors of child abductors, intercepted a private vehicle carrying two monks and their driver. Despite the victims' pleas, the mob brutally assaulted them with sticks, rods, and stones. Even as police arrived to intervene, the violence persisted, forcing officers to fire into the air. Tragically, all three victims succumbed to their injuries.

Rajesh Dhakal Rao, arrested on April 30, 2020, has remained incarcerated for over five years. As the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recently took over the probe, Rao moved the High Court, seeking bail on the grounds of "parity" with other co-accused who had walked free, and citing his prolonged pre-trial detention.

Two Visions of Justice: Arguments from the Bar

Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Saili Dhuru, argued that the incident resulted from a "spur of the moment" mob psychology, contending that the applicant lacked the specific intent to murder. She highlighted that 42 other accused had already been granted bail and that the role attributed to the applicant—assaulting a policeman—attracted significantly lighter sentencing provisions.

Conversely, the Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Amit Munde, presented a damning dossier of evidence. Drawing from CCTV footage and witness statements, the prosecution detailed specific "overt acts" by the applicant: carrying an iron axe, hitting victims with wooden sticks, and even climbing onto the bonnet of the overturned car to slash it. The prosecution maintained that the applicant was not merely present in the crowd but was an active instigator who obstructed police officers while they attempted to rescue the victims.

The Court’s Analysis: When Parity Fails

Justice Gokhale’s judgment provides a stern check on the misuse of the parity principle. Citing Supreme Court precedents including Sagar v. State of UP , the Court underscored that parity cannot be a "straight-jacket formula" for bail.

The judgment clarifies that while someone who is merely present in a massive crowd might have a case for parity, there is a clear distinction between a passive observer and someone who actively participates in violent, life-ending acts. The Court found sufficient material—verified by forensic FSL reports and witness identifications—to distinguish Rao’s involvement from the co-accused who had been released.

Key Observations

The depth of the Court's reasoning is captured in its stern observations:

> "Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail... there can be different roles played - someone part of a large group, intending to intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who fired a weapon or swung a machete - parity of these people will be with those who have performed similar acts."

> "The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. 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."

> "Incarceration undergone cannot be termed as long incarceration in the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offence."

The Road Ahead

The Court has now directed the CBI to expedite the investigation and file a report before the trial court. While the plea for release was denied, the door remains slightly ajar for the applicant to renew his request once the CBI completes its probe.

For the legal fraternity, this judgment serves as an essential reminder: in cases of collective mob violence, the law distinguishes sharply between the roles of the participants. The ruling reinforces that the constitutional right to liberty is a precious asset, yet it must be weighed against the collective interest of a society plagued by the violence of private retribution.