New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed strong displeasure over a Bombay High Court order that had granted bail to two men accused of a brutal daylight murder of a member of the Scheduled Caste community.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition filed by the deceased man’s wife, Shobha Namdev Sonavane. She had challenged the High Court’s decision to release the accused on bail, arguing that the gravity of the crime and the presence of injured eyewitnesses were overlooked.

The case involves a violent assault over a land dispute that took place in 2022, where a man was allegedly beaten to death by a mob in the middle of a market. During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench raised fundamental questions about the expectations placed on eyewitnesses during a violent mob attack.

The crux of the High Court’s reasoning for granting bail was that the First Information Report (FIR) and the statements of witnesses did not specify which accused person caused which specific injury to the victim.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, visibly unimpressed by this logic, remarked on the impossibility of such precision during a chaotic assault.

"What is the reason given by the High Court? That specific allegations are not there? How can bail be granted in such a case? There are 8 injuries and 6 assailants. It was an indiscriminate beating in the middle of the market. Does the Court expect eyewitnesses to have a photographic memory? Are they supposed to measure the injuries while the attack is happening?"

The bench emphasized that in cases involving a mob or a group of attackers, it is legally and practically unreasonable to expect a witness—who is often in a state of shock or even being attacked themselves—to provide a "blow-by-blow" account of every single hit.

The counsel representing the accused tried to defend the High Court’s order by repeating the argument that there was no specific statement regarding who inflicted the fatal blow. However, the bench pointed out a vital legal concept: Common Object.

Under Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with rioting and unlawful assembly, every member of a group can be held responsible for a crime committed by the group in pursuit of a common goal.

Justice Mehta clarified this by stating, "It is not required [to specify the act] when Sections 147, 148, and 149 apply... Why is a specific act required to be mentioned?"

By applying these sections, the law ensures that members of a lynch mob or an attacking group cannot escape justice simply because it is difficult to determine whose stick or rod caused the final, lethal injury. If the group came together with the intent to assault, every member shares the guilt.

During the proceedings, the Court was informed that one of the respondents had spent only six months in jail before being released by the High Court. While the respondent’s counsel argued that the trial was moving slowly and that her client had not violated any bail conditions in the last three years, the bench appeared firm on the necessity of custody given the nature of the allegations.

"You go back inside," Justice Nath told the counsel for the respondent, indicating that the Court was inclined to set aside the High Court’s bail order and send the accused back to prison.

The respondent’s counsel further argued that no weapons were "recovered" from her client. The bench dismissed this as a secondary concern at the bail stage, with Justice Mehta noting that "recovery is only for corroboration" and does not outweigh the direct testimony of an injured eyewitness.

Background of the Case

The incident dates back to August 2022 and is rooted in a land dispute between the petitioner’s family (belonging to the Hindu Mahadeo Koli caste, a Scheduled Caste) and the accused.

According to the petition:

The Attack: The petitioner’s husband was dropping their daughter to school when he was intercepted near a shop and attacked by six men armed with iron rods and wooden sticks.
The Witnesses: The petitioner and her relatives rushed to the spot to save him. Instead of stopping, the attackers allegedly assaulted the petitioner as well, making her an injured eyewitness.
Casteist Abuse: The complaint states that the accused used horrific casteist slurs and humiliated the petitioner by performing obscene acts to insult her modesty and her caste identity.
The Charges: A case was registered under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 (Murder), 354 (Assault on woman), and 149 (Unlawful assembly). Crucially, charges were also framed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In January 2023, a Special Court had initially rejected the bail plea of the accused, recognizing the seriousness of the crime. However, the Bombay High Court overturned this in March 2023.

The High Court had justified the bail by noting:

The lack of specific "role-play" or individual injury descriptions in the record.
The existence of a long-standing rivalry between the two families.
The fact that some other co-accused had already been granted bail.

The widow of the deceased then moved the Supreme Court, represented by her counsel, seeking the cancellation of this bail. She argued that releasing the accused in such a sensitive case involving a marginalized community sends a wrong message to society and endangers the witnesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has reserved its formal order after hearing both sides, but the observations made during the hearing serve as a significant reminder of how bail should be handled in cases of mob violence and caste-based atrocities.

By questioning the High Court’s demand for "mathematical precision" from eyewitnesses, the Supreme Court has reinforced a practical and victim-centric approach to criminal law. For the family of the deceased, the Court’s remarks offer a glimmer of hope that the gravity of their loss will not be diminished by technicalities.

Case Details: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane & Ors.
SLP(Crl) No. 12440/2023

This article is for informational purposes and provides a summary of court proceedings. For more legal updates, stay tuned to our website.