SUNIL @ SATYA SHANTARAM DALVI AND ORS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Bail Application Rejection: High Court Denies Bail in Mob Lynching Case, Emphasizing Overt Acts and Rejecting Parity as Sole Ground.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57042
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; Bail; Principle of Parity
- Facts: The Applicants sought bail in connection with C.R. No.I-76 and 77 of 2020, registered at Kasa Police Station, Palghar. The charges stemmed from an incident during the Covid-19 lockdown where a mob attacked a vehicle carrying three passengers, resulting in their deaths. The villagers suspected the passengers of being child abductors. The mob violence included pelting stones at the police who attempted to intervene. The Applicants were identified as active assailants.
- Procedural Posture: The Applicants' bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. They then moved the present application before the High Court of Bombay. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 after taking over the investigation.
- Issue: Should the Applicants be granted bail based on the principles of parity with other co-accused who have been granted bail, and on the grounds of long incarceration?
- Holding: No, the bail application is dismissed. The High Court held that the principle of parity does not apply in this case, and the length of incarceration, given the severity of the charges, does not warrant bail.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the principle of parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. It distinguished the Applicants' roles from those co-accused who were granted bail, noting that the charge-sheet contained sufficient material demonstrating overt acts by the Applicants, including physical assault on the deceased with weapons and inciting the crowd. The Court cited Supreme Court decisions, including Sagar v. State of UP, emphasizing that parity cannot be applied as a "universal application or a straight jacket formula". The Court also considered the gravity of the offense, the potential for witness tampering, and the collective interest of the community, concluding that granting bail would not be in the interest of justice. The CBI was directed to expedite the investigation.
🔒 For Members Only