RAJESH DHAKAL RAO v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bail Application Dismissed: High Court Denies Bail in Mob Lynching Case, Citing Applicant's Active Role and Rejection of Parity Principle.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57046
Decision Date: 23-12-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Disaster Management Act, 2005; Epidemic Disease Act, 1897; Maharashtra Police Act, 1951; Criminal Procedure Code; Law of Bail
- Facts: The applicant, Rajesh Dhakal Rao, sought bail in connection with C.R. No.I-76 of 2020, registered at Kasa Police Station, Palghar. The charges stem from an incident on April 14, 2020, during a COVID-19 lockdown, where a mob of 400-500 villagers attacked a private vehicle carrying three passengers, who were suspected of being thieves abducting children. The passengers were assaulted with sticks, rods, and stones, and all three succumbed to their injuries. The applicant is alleged to be one of the active assailants, and the chargesheet includes sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, along with sections of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897. The investigation was initially conducted by the Kasa Police Station, then transferred to the State Crime Branch, and subsequently to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
- Procedural Posture: The applicant previously filed a joint bail application with another co-accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, which was rejected. A subsequent bail application before the High Court was also rejected. A later joint application was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh application after six months. The present application is before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.
- Issue: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the severity of the charges, the evidence against him, and the principle of parity with other co-accused who have been granted bail.
- Holding: The bail application is dismissed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the principle of parity does not apply in this case because the applicant's role and actions were more severe than those of the co-accused who were granted bail. Witnesses identified the applicant as physically assaulting the deceased with a wooden stick and an iron axe, and CCTV footage corroborated his presence and actions. The Court also considered the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the potential for witness tampering, and the need for the applicant to face trial without undue delay. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sagar v. State of UP and Anr., emphasizing that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail and that the role attached to the accused persons and their position in relation to the incident are of utmost importance. The court also noted that "the liberty of an individual is precious" but must be balanced against the "collective interest of the community".
🔒 For Members Only