loader image

Palghar Lynchying Case: Bombay HC Denies Bail to 3 Accused, Holds Parity Cannot Apply Where Overt Acts Are Attributed

Palghar Lynchying Case: Bombay HC Denies Bail to 3 Accused, Holds Parity Cannot Apply Where Overt Acts Are Attributed

Sunil @ Satya Shantaram Dalvi & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [Decision dated December 23, 2025]

The Bombay High Court has rejected the bail applications filed by three accused in the 2020 Palghar mob lynching case, holding that the principle of parity cannot be invoked where specific overt acts are attributed to the accused, even if several co-accused have been released on bail.

The applicants sought bail in connection with two complaints registered at Kasa Police Station, Palghar, arising out of the brutal mob attack during the Covid-19 lockdown that led to the deaths of three persons, including two sadhus. The offences include murder, attempt to murder, rioting, criminal conspiracy and provisions under the Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act. The investigation, initially conducted by the local police and State Crime Branch, was transferred to the CBI in August 2025. The accused moved the High Court seeking bail in connection with the aforesaid offences, claiming parity with the co-accused already enlarged on bail.

Rejecting the plea of parity, Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale noted that while some co-accused were granted bail earlier, those cases involved individuals against whom no overt acts were attributed. In contrast, the present applicants were alleged to have actively assaulted the victims with sticks and stones, incited the mob, obstructed police officers, and participated in the violence, with such acts being supported by CCTV footage, forensic reports, witness statements, recoveries, and test identification parades.

The Court also declined to grant bail on the grounds of long incarceration, observing that although the applicants had been in custody for over five and a half years, the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the evidence on record, and the potential punishment of life imprisonment or death outweighed the claim of prolonged detention.

Emphasising the need to balance individual liberty with societal interest, the High Court held that this was not a fit case for the grant of bail, though it directed the CBI to conclude the investigation expeditiously and permitted the applicants to renew their bail plea after completion of the probe


Appearances

Mr. Sachin Ramrao Pawar, for the Applicants. Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State.

Mr. Amit Munde a/w Jai Vohra, for the Respondent No.2 – CBI.

Mr. Sanjay Sehgal, ASP, CBI, STB, Mumbai, present.

PDF Icon

Sunil @ Satya Shantaram Dalvi & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Preview PDF