[Palghar Lynching] Bombay High Court grants bail to 10 accused, rejects bail to 8

The Bombay High Court on Friday granted bail to ten accused and rejected bail to eight in the Palghar lynching case in which two Hindu Sadhus and their driver were killed in Maharashtra in April 2020..Single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre reasoned that there was no overt act that could be attributed to the 10 accused and proceeded to allow their bail plea."Considering the role attributed to the present applicant, which is of his presence and being armed with a weapon, but since no overt act is attributed to him, nor there is any recovery from him, he serves to be released on bail" Justice Dangre observed. The 8 accused were denied bail as they were seen on CCTV assaulting the now deceased Sadhus.The persons who have been granted bail are Raju Gurud, Vijay Pilena, Risha Pilena, Deepak Gurud, Sitaram Rathaod, Vijay Gurud, Ratna Bhawar, Ishwar Nikole, Firoj Sathe and Mohan Gavit.The bail pleas of Rajal Gurud, Mahesh Gurud, Lahanya Valakar, Sandesh Gurud, Havasa Sathe, Bhau Sathe, Ramdas Rao and Rajesh Rao were denied..Advocate Vrushali Raje, who appeared for most of the accused in the case, pointed out that the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution in this case is voluminous as it runs into 12,000 pages and that the investigation conducted by the local CID, is in no way, sufficient to implicate her clients for the offences with which they are charged.She argued that without any sufficient evidence, about their active participation in the assault her clients cannot be held guilty of any conspiracy. As against the Call Data Record (CDR) relied upon by the prosecution, the advocate pointed out that there is only one mobile tower in the vicinity of Gadchinche and other adjoining areas, therefore, it is natural to get the same location of any person within the range of 40 kms. The CCTV footages, which the prosecution mainly relied upon, Raje stated that the same isn't sufficient as it only mentions the presence of most of the accused but doesn't establish their participation in the assault of the two Sadhus. .Per contra, special public prosecutor Satish Maneshinde highlighted that the case was a serious one as an unruly mob of over 400 to 500 villagers, which mostly included youngsters, had overturned a vehicle in which the Sadhus were trapped. Despite the deceased revealing their identity and informing that they were residents of Nashik and were proceeding for funeral of their Guru, the villagers mistook them to be thieves and assaulted them and even pelted stones on the police, the prosecutor pointed out.Maneshinde, further informed the bench that the mob had turned violent and the cops had to fire in the air to control the crowd. Considering the material against each of the 18 accused, Justice Dangre noted that several of them were seen with weapons such as wooden sticks and logs, axes etc. As far as the eight co-accused are concerned, the bench noted that they could be seen throwing stones at the police vehicle and even hitting the deceased with the sticks and logs. Some of these 8 accused were also seen calling more persons to join the mob and assault the three Sadhus..The incident took place on the night of April 16 when two sadhus were travelling along with a driver to Gujarat in order to attend a funeral.The three individuals were lynched by a mob who had allegedly suspected them to be child kidnappers after they reached Gadchinchale village in Dahanu taluka. Reportedly, a group of 4 policemen reached the spot after the Kasa Police Station received phone calls.A Thane Sessions Court had granted bail to 89 accused in the matter in January last year. The Maharashtra Police had in September 2020 informed the Supreme Court that 18 police officers had been punished after a departmental inquiry was initiated into the matter.Three affidavits were filed by the State of Maharashtra before the Supreme Court in reply to petitions seeking a probe into the lynching of sadhus at Palghar. The State Police had informed the apex court that while one Assistant Police Inspector was dismissed, another Assistant Police Sub-Inspector and one driver were compulsorily retired.