Victim's Criminal Antecedents No Ground To Defend 'Mob Justice': Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Man For 'Lynching' Rival

Just because a person is a history-sheeter and has several criminal antecedents, 'lynching' him to death or 'mob justice' is not justified, held the Bombay High Court while refusing bail to a man, who was part of a mob of nearly 15 persons of a family, which attacked a man over past rivalry and killed him.

Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav while denying bail to one Sharad Digambar Gorane, noted that he was 'instructing' the mob to attack the victim, to 'teach him a life lesson' and also that he was asking the mob to set the victim's house on fire.

The judge noted that Sharad was the one who literally 'badgered' the victim with an axe and that he even threatened neighbours against any attempt to save the victim, who was being assaulted with iron rods, bamboo sticks, knives etc. The victim, the judge noted, had around 38 injuries in total. 

"The incident in question is not merely a case of assault resulting in death but prima facie reflects an act of mob lynching carried out with complete disregard for the rule of law. It is seen that the victim was brutally assaulted and killed inside his own house by a mob armed with deadly weapons. The nature and number of injuries sustained by the victim indicate the manner in which the assault was carried out. The fact that the incident took place in the presence of several persons gathered outside the house further aggravates the seriousness of the occurrence. Such acts of mob lynching strike at the very foundation of the rule of law and cannot be treated as ordinary cases arising out of personal enmity," Justice Jadhav observed. 

In his October 28 order, Justice Jadhav pointed out that the material on record indicates that the family members of the victim were threatened when they attempted to intervene and particularly his mother was rendered helpless while her son was being assaulted. The neighbours who gathered at the spot were also deterred from intervening due to the threats given by the mob.

"The use of force and intimidation in such circumstances results in a serious psychological impact on the persons directly affected by the incident. It also creates a sense of fear and insecurity among members of the community. The manner in which the incident occurred prima facie shows that the presence of a large group of persons was used to overpower the victim and prevent any effective intervention. In my considered opinion, the societal impact of an incident of this nature cannot be overlooked while considering the prayer for bail," the bench observed. 

When a group of persons takes the law into its own hands and resorts to violence to settle a dispute the consequences extend beyond the immediate victim, the judge said, adding that such conduct threatens public order and undermines the confidence of citizens in the protection afforded by law.

The judge particularly rejected the argument put forth by Sharad's counsel Sana Khan, that the victim in question was a history sheeter and had past rivalry with the Gorane (applicant's) family.

"Even assuming that the victim had criminal antecedents and was a history-sheeter, the Applicant and the other accused persons had no authority to punish him for his past conduct. Any allegations against the victim were required to be dealt with in accordance with law. Criminal antecedents cannot justify private vengeance or mob justice. The right to take action against an offender rests with the lawful authorities and not with individuals acting on personal grievances. Having regard to the prima facie role attributed to the Applicant and the manner in which the offence was committed I find that the gravity of the incident and its impact on the victim's family and society weigh against the grant of bail," the judge held. 

Further, the judge criticised Khan for putting forward a 'technical' argument in the bail plea that her client Sharad was not served with the grounds of arrest. The judge said that considering the heinousness and the gravity of the crime and the manner in which it is committed, to argue a technical ground of ground of arrest is something which is not appreciated at all.

"To the extent possible and the best of the ability of the prosecution, I prima facie find that the grounds of arrest have been informed and the necessary form has been given, which bears the signature of the Applicant. In that view of the matter, the technical ground on which the Applicant seeks release is also rejected as it is unsustainable," the judge said. 

With these observations, the bench rejected the bail plea. 

Appearance:

Advocates Sana Raees Khan and Suraj Mulik appeared for the Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Rajeshree Newton represented the State.

Advocates Rameshwar Gite and Pravin Thorat represented the Victim Family.