Supreme Court denies bail to accused in 2024 Gujarat mob lynching case

The Supreme Court on July 14 declined to entertain the bail plea of a man accused of participating in the mob assault that led to the death of 23-year-old Salman Vohra in Gujarat during a local cricket tournament. [Kiran @ Holo Mafatbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat]

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner was similarly placed as a co-accused whose bail application had already been rejected.

The incident occurred in June 2024, when Vohra, a Muslim youth, had travelled with friends to Chikhodara village in Anand district to attend a cricket match. A confrontation reportedly broke out between his friends and members of the local crowd. Vohra intervened to defuse the situation but was allegedly restrained and then attacked with sticks, bats, and knives. He succumbed to his injuries shortly thereafter.

A purported video of the assault circulated widely on social media platforms and appeared to show bystanders cheering during the attack. The incident sparked outrage and drew strong reactions from political and civil society figures, including Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi, who described the incident as mob lynching.

Following the investigation, the Gujarat police registered offences under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 149 (common object), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapon), 504 (provocation), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act was also invoked.

The petitioner had first approached the Gujarat High Court seeking regular bail. However, the High Court rejected the application, noting that he had allegedly held Vohra by the neck to prevent him from escaping while others delivered fatal injuries. The Court observed that such conduct indicated shared intent with the rest of the accused.

The petitioner challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court but the bench found no reason to interfere at this stage.

Therefore, the plea was dismissed.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Rajivkumar.

[Read Order]