Bombay HC rejects bail pleas of four accused in Palghar lynching case, cites gravity of roles

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (December 23, 2025) dismissed bail applications filed by four accused in the April 2020 Palghar lynching case, observing that the seriousness of the offence and their overt acts outweighed claims of parity and prolonged incarceration. Justice Neela Gokhale, pronouncing two separate orders, rejected the pleas of Rajesh Dhakal Rao, Sunil Satya Shantaram Dalvi, Sajanya Barkya Burkud, and Vinod Ramu Rao. All four have been in custody for more than five years. The case relates to the mob killing of two seers, Kalpavrikshagiri Maharaj and Sushilgiri Maharaj, and their driver Nilesh Telgade in Gadchinchle village during the COVID-19 lockdown. A crowd of 400-500 villagers allegedly attacked the trio, mistaking them for child abductors, and even assaulted police personnel who tried to intervene. The FIR invoked multiple provisions, including Sections 302 (murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 353 (assault on public servant), 147-149 (rioting) of the IPC, along with sections of the Disaster Management Act, Epidemic Diseases Act, and Maharashtra Police Act. Counsel for the applicants argued that the incident was a “spur-of-the-moment mob attack” without intent to murder and sought bail on two grounds, parity with 42 co-accused already enlarged on bail and long incarceration. “Presuming, without admitting the prosecution case, ingredients of Section 302 are not made out. The villagers presumed the persons disguised as sadhus to be thieves,” said advocate Saili Dhuru for Rao, while advocate Sachin Pawar, appearing for the other three, contended that the viral video panchanama lacked evidentiary value and witnesses only affirmed presence at the scene. Opposing bail, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Munde, representing the CBI, detailed the overt acts attributed to each applicant. Rao was seen carrying an iron axe, overturning the Eeco car, slashing its bonnet, beating the victims even as they sought refuge near a police vehicle, assaulting PSI Sudhir Katare by tearing his uniform, and inciting the mob to continue the attack. Dalvi allegedly assaulted the victims with big stones, recorded a video of the violence on his mobile phone, and pushed a police official who tried to intervene. Burkud was accused of inserting a wooden stick through a police vehicle window to beat the victims and conspiring to gather the mob. Rao allegedly beat Kalpavrikshagiri Maharaj with a wooden stick, hurled stones at the victims, and convened a clandestine meeting to incite violence. “The Applicant was inciting the mob. All these acts are caught on camera as well as evidenced by witnesses,” the court recorded. Witnesses including Vikas Kanoja, Dinesh Borsa, Chitra Chaudhary (sarpanch), and others identified the applicants as active assailants. Injury certificates of six policemen and post-mortem reports of the victims, noting skull fractures and sub-arachnoid hemorrhage, were also placed on record. Rejecting parity, the judge cited Supreme Court rulings in Sagar v. State of U.P. and others: “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.” On liberty versus public interest, Justice Gokhale observed, “Liberty...

Preview: ~500 words