2020 Palghar lynching case: HC rejects bail plea of four accused, directs CBI to expedite probe

The prosecution opposed the bail applications and stated that the CCTV footage showed the four men attacking the victims and the policemen who tried to rescue them.

Bombay High Court, bail pleas, Palghar lynching case, Rajesh Dhakal Rao,

The HC observed that the bail applicants have suffered incarceration of nearly five years and the probe was recently transferred to CBI. (Express file photo)

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail pleas of four accused in the 2020 Palghar lynching case after observing that there was sufficient prima facie material to implicate them in the case.

A single-judge bench of Justice Neela K Gokhale passed an order on bail pleas of Rajesh Dhakal Rao, Sunil Shantaram Dalvi, Sajanua Barkya Urkud and Vinod Ramu Rao who sought release on bail on the ground of long incarceration and parity with the other accused who had secured bail in the case.

However, the HC observed that the bail applicants have suffered incarceration of nearly five years and the probe was recently transferred to CBI. Therefore, the HC directed CBI to conclude the investigation expeditiously and file appropriate report before the trial court. The HC said the applicants were at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after the CBI probe is complete.

As per prosecution, on April 14, 2020, a mob lynched two sadhus, Chikne Maharaj Kalpavrukshagiri (70) and Sushilgiri Maharaj (35) and their driver Nilesh Telgade (30) at Gadchinchale in Palghar, 140-km north of Mumbai. The attack took place amid rumours that several child-lifters were roaming in the area during the Covid-induced lockdown.

The prosecution opposed the bail applications and stated that the CCTV footage showed the four men attacking the victims and the policemen who tried to rescue them.

It was also argued that Rao, one of the applicants, was seen in CCTV footage raising an axe and hitting the deceased.

Justice Gokhale observed that, “there was no denying the fact that the liberty of an

Story continues below this ad

individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts… Nonetheless, such a protection 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.”

It is possible that, Justice Gokhale said, “in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned.”

The court noted that the present bail applicants cannot seek ground of parity as the role attributed to each accused was different. “The material in the chargesheet is sufficient to demonstrate overt acts,” the HC observed while refusing relief.