Rajasthan High Court denies bail to three booked for lynching rape accused

The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to three men accused of lynching a man who suspected of raping the minor daughter of one of the three men [Darshan Singh and Ors. v State of Rajasthan and Anr.].Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that mob-lynching is unacceptable in a civilized society and that we are not living in a barbarian society where people are allowed to take law into their own hands.."This mob-lynching practice is not acceptable in civilized society at any cost. We are not living in a barbarian society. People are not allowed to take law in their hands so also, they should also not be allowed to create hindrance in working of the police, who in the instant case, reached at the spot but was prevented in discharging their official duties of maintaining law and order situation," the order dated March 14 stated..The first information report (FIR) against the accused was filed for offences under Sections 147 (rioting), 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 382 (theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft), 386 (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act (offence under IPC against a member of SC or ST).After the investigation, the chargesheet filed mentioned all offences in the FIR save Section 382 of IPC..The accused sought bail from the trial court which rejected their applications. Aggrieved, they moved the High Court. .They contended that they had been falsely implicated in the case. They claimed that the deceased person had visited the house of two appellants, who were siblings, and raped one of the sibling's minor daughter before sustaining injuries while trying to escape. Further, they informed the Court that for the offence of rape, an FIR had been registered and the offences had been proved against the deceased person. The accused also underlined that as per police statements, the deceased person was already beaten up by the villagers and that there was no eyewitness saying that the appellants were involved in commission of the alleged crime.The third accused contended that he had nothing to do with the crime and only happened to be the neighbour of the other accused.Moreover, the fourth accused, a woman, had already been granted bail, the Court was informed..On the other hand, Public Prosecutor SK Mahala told the Court that the fourth accused was granted bail considering that she was a woman and that no specific role had been attributed to her.He alleged that the accused not only beat the deceased person but also prevented the police from taking him to a hospital, resulting in his death. .The Court noted the allegations of brutal beating and the fact that the police was prevented from taking the victim to the hospital. In this context, it observed that we are not living in a barbarian society where people are allowed to take law into their own hands..Further, it stated that the proceedings arising out of the FIR for rape would proceed as per law and that the accused could not be allowed to take the shield of that FIR.Taking note of all the facts and considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of allegations, the Court determined that it was not inclined to grant bail. Therefore, it rejected the appeal..[Read Order]