Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Mob Violence Case Due to Long Incarceration and Parity with Co-Accused. Continued detention held violative of Article 21 of the Constitution under Section 439 CrPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 167
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, Sunil @ Satya Shantaram Dalvi, Sajanya Barkya Burkud, and Vinod Ramu Rao, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.I-76 of 2020 and C.R. No.I-77 of 2020 registered at Kasa Police Station, Palghar, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 341, 427, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Subsequently, Sections 302, 120B, 109, 117 were added. The case arose from an incident on 17th April 2020 where a mob allegedly attacked police personnel, resulting in the death of a police officer. The applicants were arrested and had been in custody for over 4 years and 8 months. The trial had not yet commenced. The applicants argued that they were entitled to bail on grounds of long incarceration, parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, and lack of criminal antecedents. The State and CBI opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offences. The court, after considering the submissions, noted that the applicants had been in custody for a substantial period, the trial was not likely to commence soon, and co-accused had been granted bail. The court also observed that the role of the applicants was not specifically attributed in the incident and no recovery of weapons was made from them. Accordingly, the court granted bail to the applicants subject to conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties, reporting to the police station once a month, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the country without court permission.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Long Incarceration - Applicants were in custody for over 4 years and 8 months; trial not yet commenced; co-accused already granted bail; no criminal antecedents - Held that continued detention would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution; bail granted on conditions (Paras 1-10).

B) Indian Penal Code - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Prima Facie Case - Allegations of mob violence against police personnel causing death; however, role of applicants not specifically attributed; no recovery of weapons from them - Held that prima facie case for Section 307 is not made out against applicants (Paras 5-8).

C) Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act - Sections 3 and 5 - Damage to Public Property - Allegations of rioting and damage; but applicants not identified as main perpetrators; long incarceration - Held that bail may be granted subject to conditions (Paras 5-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicants are entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the nature of offences, period of incarceration, and parity with co-accused.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicants on bail subject to conditions: each applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties; to report to the police station once a month; not to tamper with evidence; not to leave the country without court permission; and to provide their contact details.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • parity with co-accused
  • long incarceration
  • lack of criminal antecedents
  • prima facie case assessment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 73

Bail Application No. 3792 of 2025

2025-12-23

Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.

Mr. Sachin Ramrao Pawar for the Applicants, Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State, Mr. Amit Munde a/w Jai Vohra for Respondent No.2 – CBI

Sunil @ Satya Shantaram Dalvi, Sajanya Barkya Burkud, Vinod Ramu Rao

State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail application under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Release on bail by the applicants in connection with two FIRs for offences including attempt to murder, rioting, and damage to public property

Filing Reason

Applicants were arrested and in custody for over 4 years and 8 months; trial not commenced; co-accused granted bail

Issues

Whether the applicants are entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC given the long period of incarceration and parity with co-accused? Whether the nature and gravity of offences justify continued detention?

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants argued that they have been in custody for over 4 years and 8 months, trial has not commenced, co-accused have been granted bail, and they have no criminal antecedents. State and CBI opposed bail citing the gravity of offences, including murder of a police officer, and that the applicants were part of a mob that attacked police personnel.

Ratio Decidendi

Long incarceration without trial, parity with co-accused who have been granted bail, and lack of criminal antecedents are grounds for granting bail under Section 439 CrPC, even in serious offences, if continued detention would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

The Applicants seek their release on bail in connection with C.R. No.I- 76 of 2020, dated 17th April 2020 and C.R. No.I- 77 of 2020, dated 18th April 2020... Considering the period of incarceration and the fact that the trial is not likely to commence soon, the applicants are entitled to bail.

Procedural History

The applicants were arrested in April 2020 in connection with two FIRs. They filed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC before the Bombay High Court. The application was heard and decided on 23rd December 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 353, 332, 333, 341, 427, 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 109, 117
  • Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: 3, 5
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 439
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Deduction Under Section 80V for Interest on Borrowings for Tax Payment and Directs Recomputation of Disallowance Under Rule 6D on Aggregate Trip Basis. The Court held that Section 80V deduction is available if borrowings were...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Impleadment of Purchasers in Specific Performance Appeal — Purchasers Claiming Through Plaintiff Are Not Necessary Parties Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Doctrine of Lis Pendens Protects Their Interest...