The Bombay High Court ruled that the incarceration undergone by the convict for years cannot be termed as long incarceration, for purposes of seeking bail, when the maximum sentence for the offence is life imprisonment or death. The Court therefore dismissed the bail application, concluding it was not a fit case for granting bail. However, it directed the CBI to conclude its investigation expeditiously.
The High Court admitted that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the Courts. Nonetheless, such protection cannot be absolute in every situation, and the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of society in general have to be balanced.
Essentially, the Court clarified that the liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case, and the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr Neela Gokhale noted that the overt acts attributed to the applicant include carrying an iron axe and throwing large stones at the vehicle, brutally beating one of the deceased, assaulting the PSI while he was discharging his duty, and inciting the mob to continue the assault.
The Bench explained that the principle of parity would not apply to the applicant, as the ‘degree of gravity’ of the actions of the present applicant is much higher, and no overt act is attributed to the other co-accused, who was granted bail. Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, and it applies only where the case of the accused is identically similar to that of a co-accused already enlarged on bail.
The Bench also referred to the CCTV footage, panchanama, positive forensic report showing the applicant holding an axe and hitting the deceased, and the post-mortem reports detailing severe injuries on vital parts of the deceased, including skull fractures and head injuries leading to sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. Accordingly, the Bench refused to grant bail to the applicant.
Briefly, the case pertains to a bail application in connection with a crime, where an incident occurred on April 14, 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown, when a mob of 400 to 500 villagers attacked a private Eeco car with three passengers inside. The villagers, under the belief that the passengers were thieves abducting children, assaulted them with wooden sticks, despite the passengers’ pleas that they were travelling for their guru’s funeral.
The mob also turned violent against the police personnel who arrived to rescue the individuals, pelting stones at them and restraining them from reaching the victims. The three passengers ultimately succumbed to their injuries, and the applicant was identified as one of the active assailants and was arrested. The investigation was initially conducted by local police, then transferred to the State Crime Branch, and was recently handed over to the CBI. The applicant and another co-accused filed a joint application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was rejected.
The Applicant argued that 42 other co-accused in the offence have been granted bail, and the role attributed to the Applicant is similar to theirs. The only distinguishing factor alleged was the assault on a policeman, which would attract Section 353 of the IPC, carrying a maximum punishment of two years. Additionally, it was submitted that the ingredients of Section 302 (murder) are not made out as the incident was a case of mob lynching that occurred on the spur of the moment, without any intention to murder. The prosecution opposed the bail application by highlighting the specific and grave role of the Applicant, supported by CCTV footage and witness statements.
Appearances:
Advocate Saili Dhuru, for the Applicant
Advocates Poonam P. Bhosale, Amit Munde, and Jai Vohra, for the Respondent
