'People Can't Take Law In Their Hands': Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Three Accused Of Lynching Rape Accused

Rajasthan High Court has denied bail to three persons accused of lynching a man booked earlier for raping the minor daughter of one among them. While denying the bail, the court emphasized that the FIR lodged by the police against the deceased Rohit for rape cannot be used as a shield by the appellants/accused for the purpose of bail in lynching.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman also added that the practice of mob lynching cannot be accepted in any civil society at any cost.

“…We are not living in a barbarian society. People are not allowed to take law in their hands so also, they should also not be allowed to create hindrance in working of the police, who in the instant case, reached at the spot but was prevented in discharging their official duties of maintaining law and order situation…”, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed.

In the FIR registered against the appellants back in 2023, the primary allegation was that the appellants joined hands with other villagers in attacking the rape accused Rohit and committed his murder despite clear prohibitory orders from the police. The FIR was registered at Nadoti Police Station, Gangapur, and the accused were charge-sheeted for offenses under Sections 147, 149, 342, 382, 386, 504, 506, 302, and 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. The current appeals have been preferred by the accused, aggrieved by the trial court orders dated 08.02.2024 & 25.01.2024 rejecting their bail applications.

In the appeal, it was contended by the accused that the deceased Rohit, who was trying to flee after the commission of rape, had already been beaten up by the villagers by the time police reached the spot. This has become clear from the statements of the police officers recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C, contended the counsel for the appellants. There are no eyewitnesses who can link the accused/appellants to the crime committed, though the daughter of one of the accused was victimized by the deceased; it was submitted by the council.

The deceased had allegedly trespassed into the house of the first two appellants, who are siblings, and committed the heinous act upon the daughter of one among them.

The third appellant took the stance that he was a mere neighbor of the other appellants and he had been falsely implicated in the crime of lynching. On another note, it was also submitted that one of the co-accused, who is a woman, was already granted bail by the court.

In response, the public prosecutor submitted that the accused committed a serious offence by causing grave injuries to the deceased Rohit by inflicting lathis, sariyas and farsi blows. According to the prosecution, the police team was deliberately prevented from reaching the place of the incident to take the deceased Rohit to the hospital on time. If the police were able to take Rohit to hospital on time by rescuing the deceased from the clutches of the mob, he could have been saved, the prosecutor further submitted.

“….. The appellant [name redacted] is named in the FIR, and he was also alleged to have caused beatings to the deceased Rohit in the FIR. There is an allegation in the FIR that appellants along with other villagers took law in their hands and committed murder of the deceased Rohit and brushed aside the orders of the police team…” the court concluded while denying all the three appellants bail.

For Appellants: Mr. Anurag Sharma with Ms. Shreya Hatila, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Ms. Chanchal Sharma

For Respondents: Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP, Mr Fateh Ram Meea for complainant

Case Title: DS & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor & Anr. & Connected Matters

Case No: S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 317/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 65

Click Here To Read/Download Order