Bombay HC Denies Bail To 4 Accused In 2020 Palghar Sadhus Lynching Case

The Bombay High Court has refused bail to four accused in the 2020 Palghar lynching of two Sadhus and their driver, citing the seriousness of the crime and witness tampering risks, while directing the CBI to complete the probe expeditiously.

Add FPJ As a
Trusted Source
Urvi Mahajani Updated: Wednesday, December 24, 2025, 07:19 AM IST
Bombay High Court rejects bail pleas of four accused in the Palghar mob lynching case citing gravity of offence and witness tampering concerns | File Photo

Bombay High Court rejects bail pleas of four accused in the Palghar mob lynching case citing gravity of offence and witness tampering concerns | File Photo

Mumbai, Dec 23: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused bail to four persons accused in the mob lynching and killing of two sadhus and their driver in Palghar district during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020, noting the “gravity and seriousness” of the offence.

Court Cites Witness Tampering Concerns

Justice Neels Gokhale, while rejecting the bail pleas of Sunil alias Satya Shantaram Dalvi, Sajanya Barkya Burkud, Vinod Ramu Rao and Rajesh Rao, also expressed a “reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with or the evidence being lost otherwise”.

CBI Asked To Expedite Probe

However, considering that the accused have been incarcerated since 2020, the court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which recently took over the probe, to conclude the investigation expeditiously and file an appropriate report before the trial court.

Accused Sought Bail On Grounds Of Parity

The accused, who are presently in judicial custody, were arrested in April 2020. They sought bail on the ground of long incarceration and on the principle of parity. Till now, 42 accused in the case have been granted bail.

Liberty Not Absolute, Says HC

Justice Gokhale said there was no denying that a person’s liberty was precious, but the same cannot be absolute in every situation. “The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case,” the court said. The judge added that the collective interest of a community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned.

Not A Fit Case For Bail: Court

“Taking into consideration the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case, and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with or the evidence being lost otherwise… this is not a fit case nor in the interest of justice that the applicants should be enlarged on bail,” the court said.

Background Of The Case

Initially, a case was registered at Kasa police station in Palghar on April 17 and 18, 2020, against 126 persons. The case was handed over to the CBI only in August this year.

On April 14, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, a mob of villagers in Palghar district attacked a private vehicle which had three passengers — two sadhus and their driver — on the suspicion that they were child kidnappers.

Even before the police could arrive, the mob of over 400 villagers assaulted the passengers in the car, who later succumbed to their injuries. The mob had also assaulted the police team, the prosecution claimed.

Specific Allegations Against Accused

The prosecution opposed Rao’s bail, claiming that he was carrying an iron axe at the time of the incident as per CCTV footage and that he had also assaulted policemen who were trying to save the victims.

While rejecting Rao’s bail plea, the High Court said there were witnesses who had identified him as the person who physically assaulted the deceased with wooden sticks and an iron axe. “In one CCTV footage, the applicant (Rao) is seen raising an axe and hitting the deceased,” the court said.

Parity Cannot Apply In Mob Lynching Cases

The court added that in cases of mob lynching, the ground of parity cannot be applied as the role attributed to each accused is different.

HC Observations On Incarceration And Future Relief

Taking into consideration the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case, and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with or the evidence being lost otherwise, and the applicants not being available to face the trial without undue delay, the court held that this was not a fit case for bail.

It further observed that since the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is life imprisonment or death, the incarceration undergone cannot be considered long incarceration in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Also Watch:

Since the applicants have undergone incarceration of five and a half years and the investigation has only recently been transferred to the CBI, the agency has been directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously and file an appropriate report before the trial court. The applicants have been granted liberty to renew their bail pleas after the completion of the investigation.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Published on: Wednesday, December 24, 2025, 07:19 AM IST

RECENT STORIES