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

According to the warrant, Mr. Gorane was part of a group of 15 family members who attacked the victim over a rivalry. The man suffered 38 injuries in the assault that took place at his home. The group is said to have used poles, sticks and knives in the attack. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Bombay High Court on October 28 denied bail to Sharad Digambar Gorane in a lynching case in which a group attacked and killed a man at his home. The court noted that a person’s antecedents do not give a group the power 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 warrant, Mr. Gorane was part of a group of 15 family members who attacked the victim over a rivalry. The man suffered 38 injuries in the assault that took place at his home. The group is said to have used poles, sticks and knives in the attack.

The order said Mr Gorane ordered 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 ax and threatened neighbors who tried to save her.

Family members of the victim were also threatened during the attempted intervention. His mother was left helpless as the group attacked her son, while neighbors who gathered outside the house were dissuaded from intervention by threats.

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

The victim was attacked and killed in his home by a group armed with weapons. The number and nature of the injuries indicated the severity of the assault. The incident also took place when people gathered outside the house, the court noted.

The court said that acts of this nature interfere with the foundations of the rule of law and cannot be considered ordinary cases arising from personal rivalry.

He further noted that when a group takes the law into their own hands and resorts to violence to settle a dispute, the consequences go beyond the victim. Such conduct threatens public order and undermines citizens’ confidence in the protection afforded them by law.

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

Advocate Sana Raees Khan, who appeared for Mr Gorane, argued that the victim was a historian and that there was a rivalry between him and the complainant’s family.

The court rejected the argument, noting that even though the victim had a criminal record and was a history buff, Mr. Gorane and the others did not have the authority to punish him for his behavior.

Any charges against the victim had to be dealt with in accordance with the law, it said. His predecessors failed to justify the vengeance of individuals or the administration of justice by the mob. Law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities, not individuals acting on personal grievances, had the power to act against the offender, the court added.

Khan also alleged that Mr. Gorane was not served with the reasons for his arrest.

The court rejected this claim and stated that the reasons for the arrest had been communicated to the applicant and that he had been given the relevant form. The form also bore the applicant’s signature, the order noted.

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

Published – 04 Nov 2026 05:30 IST