On Friday, bail was granted to 10 tribals by the Bombay High Court, who were accused in the Palghar mob lynching cases of 2020 and in which 3 people were lynched including 2 Sadhus. The Bombay High Court denied bail to 8 others.
The Special Court in January 2021 has granted bail to 89 accused in the case.
Justice Bharati Dangre, in the order, distinguished between those were present at the site and merely involved in instigating the attackers from those who are seen assaulting the deceased in the video footage.
It was observed by Justice Bharati Dangre that no overt act of violence is attributed to the 10 even though they are seen in the CCTV footage. Now when the investigation is complete, their custody is not warranted and they are entitled to be released on bail.
For those whose bails were rejected few are seen hitting the deceased and throwing stones, others are seen assaulting the Sadhu with a stick "clearly point out to their active participation in hitting the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries. These applicants, in the wake of the evidence compiled against them, do not deserve any relief and their application is rejected," observed the Judge.
One of the accused, Rajesh Dhakal Rao was denied bail and who was allegedly seen in the CCTV footage using an axe to brutally assault deceased Kapavriksha Giri Maharaj and apparently continued to assault him even after the Sadhu fell to the ground.
Five days before the incident there were rumours of thieves, child-lifters and alleged organ-harvesters on the prowl were doing the rounds in 50 villages across Palghar. Finally on the tragic night when this incident took place, a mob of nearly 250-300 people lynched sadhus Chikne Maharaj Kalpavrukshagiri (70) and Sushilgiri Maharaj (35) - and their driver Nilesh Telgade (30), 140 km north of Mumbai.
They were booked under sections 302, 307, 120(B), 353, 332, 341, 342, 427, 109, 117, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 152, 188, 201, 269, 270, 290, 505 (2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 51(b), 52, 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 of the Epidemic Act, 1897 and Sections 135, 37(1)(3) of the Destruction of Public Property Act, 1984.
It was argued by the Special Public Prosecutor Satish Maneshinde that there was evidence in the form of the accused's identification by witnesses in CCTV footages as well as their identification through the Forensic Science Laboratory report showing a match between a static photo and people seen on the CCTV clip.
Also the bail was sought by the accused on the grounds that the prosecution has not been able to compile cogent and reliable evidence against them in the charge-sheet. Since the incident involved 500 people, the identification was doubtful, Advocate Vrishali Raje submitted.
It was submitted by Advocate Wesley Menezes and Ashley Cusher that the charge sheet ran into over 1200 pages. He argued that without sufficient evidence, about his active participation in the assault, the applicants cannot be held guilty of any conspiracy. Also, he forcefully argued that the police had relied on Call Data Records of the accused to show their presence. But he submitted that in the vicinity of Gadchinche and other adjoining area, there is only one mobile tower and, therefore, it is natural to get the same location of any person within the range of 40 kms.
The Justice Dangre deliberated the individual roles of the accused and denied bail to only those who were actively seen attacking the victims or those accused at whose behest assault weapons were recovered. Also she observed, "the material compiled against the applicants is based on the report of the FSL where the reference photograph matched with the image of the accused in the CCTV footage and the video and, at this stage, it can be said to be sufficient material to implicate them.
Mohan Gavit, Ishwar bandhu Nikole, Feroj Bhau Sathe, Raju Gurud, Vijay Pilena, Disha Pilena, Dipak Gurud, Sitaram Rathod, Vijay Gurud, Ratna Bhawar are the ones who were granted bail by the Court.
Those accused whose bails were rejected by the Court are Rajesh Rao, Ramdas Rao, Bhau Dhakal Sathe, Havasa Tulaji Sathe, Rajal Gurud, Mahesh Gurud, Lahanya Valakar and Sandesh Gurud.
