Bombay HC denies bail in lynching case, says only law can punish offenders

According to the order, Mr. Gorane was part of a group of 15 family members who attacked the victim over a rivalry. The man sustained 38 injuries in the assault, which took place inside his house. The group allegedly used rods, sticks and knives during the attack. File

The Bombay High Court on October 28 refused bail to Sharad Digambar Gorane in a lynching case in which a group attacked a man inside his house and killed him. The court observed that a person’s antecedents do not give a group the authority to punish him or enforce justice through mob violence.

Justice Milind Jadhav passed the order on a bail application filed by Mr. Gorane.

According to the order, Mr. Gorane was part of a group of 15 family members who attacked the victim over a rivalry. The man sustained 38 injuries in the assault, which took place inside his house. The group allegedly used rods, sticks and knives during the attack.

The order states that Mr. Gorane instructed the group to attack the man to “teach him a life lesson” and asked its members to set the house on fire. It further records that Mr. Gorane attacked the victim with an axe and threatened neighbours who attempted to rescue him.

The victim’s family members were also threatened when they tried to intervene. His mother was left helpless as the group attacked her son, while neighbours who gathered outside the house were deterred from intervening by threats.

Justice Jadhav observed that the incident was not a case of an assault that resulted in death. Instead, the material on record reflected an act of mob lynching carried out in complete disregard for the rule of law.

The victim was attacked and killed inside his house by a group armed with weapons. The number and nature of the injuries indicated the severity of the assault. The incident also unfolded while people had gathered outside the house, the court noted.

The court said acts of this nature strike at the foundation of the rule of law and cannot be treated as ordinary cases arising out of personal rivalry.

It further observed that when a group takes the law into its own hands and resorts to violence to settle a dispute, the consequences extend beyond the victim. Such conduct threatens public order and undermines citizens’ confidence in the protection offered by law.

The impact of the incident on the victim’s family and society weighed against granting bail, the court said. It also noted that the group had used its numerical strength to overpower the victim and prevent others from intervening. The impact of such violence on those present at the scene and the wider community could not be overlooked while considering the bail application.

Appearing for Mr. Gorane, advocate Sana Raees Khan argued that the victim was a history-sheeter and that there was a rivalry between him and the applicant’s family.

The court rejected the argument, observing that even if the victim had criminal antecedents and was a history-sheeter, Mr. Gorane and the others had no authority to punish him for his conduct.

Any allegations against the victim had to be dealt with in accordance with the law, it said. His antecedents could not justify vengeance by individuals or the enforcement of justice by a mob. The authority to act against an offender rested with the law enforcement agencies and other competent authorities, and not with individuals acting on personal grievances, the court added.

Khan also argued that Mr. Gorane had not been served with the grounds of arrest.

Rejecting this contention, the court said the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the applicant and that the relevant form had been handed over to him. The form also bore the applicant’s signature, the order noted.

Finding no basis for the argument, the court rejected this ground as well and refused to grant Mr. Gorane bail.