"No Overt Act" - Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 10 Tribal Accused In Palghar Mob Lynching, Refuses Bail To 8 Others

Earlier, in January 2021, the special court granted bail to 89 accused in the case.

In Friday's order Justice Bharati Dangre distinguished between those present at the site and merely involved in instigating the attackers from those who are seen assaulting the deceased in the video footage.

She observed that "no overt act" of violence is attributed to the 10 even though they are seen in the CCTV footage. "Now when the investigation is complete, their custody is not warranted and they are entitled to be released on bail."

As for those whose bails were rejected – few are seen hitting the deceased and throwing stones, others are seen assaulting the Sadhu with a stick "clearly point out to their active participation in hitting the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries. These applicants, in the wake of the evidence compiled against them, do not deserve any relief and their application is rejected" the judge observed.

One particular accused - Rajesh Dhakal Rao- denied bail was allegedly seen in the CCTV footage using an axe to brutally assault deceased Kapavriksha Giri Maharaj and apparently continued to assault him even after the sadhu fell to the ground.

Five days before the lynching of two sadhus and their driver in Gadchinchle village on April 16, rumours of thieves, child-lifters and alleged organ-harvesters on the prowl were doing the rounds in 50 villages across Palghar. Finally on the fateful night, a mob of nearly 250-300 people lynched sadhus Chikne Maharaj Kalpavrukshagiri (70) and Sushilgiri Maharaj (35) - and their driver Nilesh Telgade (30), 140 km north of Mumbai.

The incident was given a political colour by several politicians repeatedly highlighting the religion of the men murdered. However, it was later learned that, both, the victim and the accused belonged to the same religion.

The Kasa Police station boked the accused, mainly tribals, under sections pertaining to murder and assault, and also accused them of violating lockdown norms considering the pandemic was at its peak.

They were booked under sections 302, 307, 120(B), 353, 332, 341, 342, 427, 109, 117, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 152, 188, 201, 269, 270, 290, 505 (2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 51(b), 52, 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 of the Epidemic Act, 1897 and Sections 135, 37(1)(3) of the Destruction of Public Property Act, 1984.

Special Public Prosecutor Satish Maneshinde argued that there was evidence in the form of the accused's identification by witnesses in CCTV footages as well as their identification through the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report showing a match between a static photo and people seen on the CCTV clip.

Conversely, the accused sought bail on the grounds that the prosecution has not been able to compile cogent and reliable evidence against them in the charge-sheet. Since the incident involved 500 people, identification was doubtful, advocate Vrishali Raje submitted.

Advocate Wesley Menezes and Ashley Cusher submitted that the charge sheet ran into over 12,00 pages. He argued that without sufficient evidence, about his active participation in the assault, the applicants cannot be held guilty of any conspiracy.

He forcefully argued that the police has relied on Call Data Records of the accused to show their presence. However he submitted that in the vicinity of Gadchinche and other adjoining area, there is only one mobile tower and, therefore, it is natural to get the same location of any person within the range of 40 kms.

Justice Dangre considered the individual roles of the accused and denied bail to only those who were actively seen attacking the victims or those accused at whose behest assault weapons were recovered.

She observed, "the material compiled against the applicants is based on the report of the FSL where the reference photograph matched with the image of the accused in the CCTV footage and the video and, at this stage, it can be said to be sufficient material to implicate them.''

The 10 who were granted bail are Mohan Gavit, Ishwar bandhu Nikole, Feroj Bhau Sathe, Raju Gurud, Vijay Pilena, Disha Pilena, Dipak Gurud, Sitaram Rathod, Vijay Gurud, Ratna Bhawar.

Accused whose bails were rejected were Rajesh Rao, Ramdas Rao, Bhau Dhakal Sathe, Havasa Tulaji Sathe, Rajal Gurud, Mahesh Gurud, Lahanya Valakar and Sandesh Gurud.