SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
Sunil @ Satya Shantaram Dalvi and Ors. – Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. – Respondents
Bail Application No.3792 of 2025
Decided On : 23-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Mr. Sachin Ramrao Pawar.
For the Respondents: Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP, Mr. Amit Munde a/w Jai Vohra, Mr. Sanjay Sehgal, ASP, CBI, STB, Mumbai, present.

The principle of parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of each accused's role, and cannot be invoked where direct involvement and serious charges exist.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 341, 427, 147, 148, 149; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sections 3 and 5; Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Sections 51

(B), 52, and 54; Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 - Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5; Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Sections 135, 37(1), and (3) - Bail application - Applicants sought bail after five and a half years of incarceration for involvement in a mob lynching incident during Covid-19 lockdown - Cited grounds of parity and long incarceration. (Paras 1, 5, 16)

(B) Bail - Principle of parity - The principle cannot be the sole ground for granting bail; the roles of accused individuals must be individually assessed based on evidence and circumstances. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) Rights of the accused - The court emphasizes the balance between individual liberty and societal interest; the seriousness of the offence complicates bail considerations. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The Applicants are accused in a mob lynching incident during a lockdown, wherein three individuals were killed by a violent mob believing them to be thieves. The Applicants were arrested in May 2020, with charges against them escalating during the investigation. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence implicating the Applicants in overt acts during the incident and emphasized that the principle of parity was not applicable as their roles were distinct from those granted bail previously. (Paras 10, 15)

Issues: The primary issues addressed were whether the Applicants' roles warranted a grant of bail based on parity with co-accused and the long duration of their incarceration. (Paras 5, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ultimately ruled that the Applicants did not meet the criteria for bail due to their direct involvement and the serious nature of the charges, emphasizing that collective actions do not equate to individual accountability. (Paras 18, 19)

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and charges. (Para 1 , 2)
2. previous bail application was rejected. (Para 3)
3. applicants' counsel argues for bail on grounds of parity and long incarceration. (Para 4 , 5)
4. prosecution presents evidence against applicants' bail request. (Para 6 , 7)
5. court reviews previous bail decisions relevant to applicants. (Para 8 , 9)
6. sufficient evidence linked to applicants; disallows parity argument. (Para 10 , 15)
7. court affirms limitations on applying principle of parity. (Para 11 , 12)
8. balancing individual liberty with societal interest in justice. (Para 17 , 18)
9. application is dismissed; cbi directed for timely investigations. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. The Applicants seek their release on bail in connection with C.R. No.I- 76 of 2020, dated 17th April 2020 and C.R. No.I- 77 of 2020, dated 18th April 2020, registered with the Kasa Police Station, Palghar, for the offence punishable under Section 3 07 , 353, 332, 333, 341, 427, 147, 148 and 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (‘IPC’) and and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Thereafter, Sections 3 02 , 120B, 109, 117, 143, 144, 145, 152, 153, 188, 201, 269, 270, 271, 290, 342 and 505(2) read with 4 of the IPC and Sections 5 1(B), 52 and 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Sections 2 , 3, 4 and 5 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 and Sections 135 read with 7 (1) and (3) of the MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT , 1951 were applied. Upon investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against 126 persons including the present Applicants. Initially, the investigation was conducted by the officers of Kasa Police Station and thereafter, it was transferred to the State Crime Branch. Mr. Munde, learned Spl. PP, has informed that the investigation was recently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') on 8th August 2025 and by way of an amendment, the CBI is impleaded as Respondent No.2 in the present Application.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that while a lockdown was ordered and enforced in Palghar district on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, on 14th April, 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. 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 which had come to rescue the persons being assaulted. The incident took a serious 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. The present Applicants are stated to be active assailants in the incident. They were arrested in C.R No.I – 76 of 2020 on 22nd May 2020, and in C.R. No.I- 77 of 2020 on 08th May 2020, 09th May 2020 and 10th May 2020 respectively.

3. The Applicants filed an application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane; however, by order dated 2nd September 2025, the bail application was rejected. Hence, the Applicants have moved the present Application for the reliefs as prayed.

4. Mr. Sachin Pawar, learned counsel, appeared for the Applicants; Mr. Amit Munde, learned Sp. PP, appeared for the Respondent No.2- CBI and Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top