Vigilantism Can’t Be Justified by Theft Allegations: Gujarat High Court Denies Bail in Brutal Double Murder Case

“Beating someone to death cannot be justified under any circumstances, not even theft. Informing the police was the lawful recourse—not lynching,” Gujarat High Court dismissed a bail application filed by Deepukumar Shivbahadur Yadav, one of the key accused in the shocking lynching case of two tribal men who were tied, beaten with PVC pipes and sticks, and left for dead after being accused of stealing iron rods from a construction site in Kevadiya. The Court, while citing strong medical evidence, consistent statements, and a dying declaration, held that the brutality of the act and the applicant’s prima facie involvement rendered the case unfit for bail.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, in a detailed judgment, remarked that the attack revealed highhandedness, complete disregard for due process, and collective criminal intent. He stated that even assuming the victims were caught stealing, the accused had no right to take the law into their own hands.

Two Men Accused of Theft Were Tied and Fatally Beaten; One Died Instantly, Other Succumbed Later
The case arises from an incident on August 6, 2024, when Sanjaybhai and Jayeshbhai Tadvi were allegedly caught attempting to steal construction material from the Adivasi Museum site. What followed was a merciless assault by a group of five to six men, including the present applicant. Both victims were tied with ropes, repeatedly beaten, and left in critical condition. Jayeshbhai died on the spot, while Sanjaybhai initially survived and later died after giving a dying declaration.

The Court noted that the complainant, Sanjaybhai, had named the present applicant even before the FIR was registered. His version was consistent across his statement to the doctor, his complaint at the hospital, and the dying declaration recorded by the police. These facts weighed heavily against the applicant and demolished any plea of false implication.

“There is no CCTV? His name appears from the very beginning”: High Court Rejects Technical Defences
The applicant’s lawyer argued that there was no CCTV footage placing him at the scene, no test identification parade had been held, and that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, making certain sections under the SC/ST Act inapplicable.

The Court was not persuaded. It observed that the identification parade was never held because the complainant died. But the naming of the accused in the initial medical history, FIR, and dying declaration was credible and consistent. Justice Suthar emphasized that when the complainant named someone even before lodging the FIR, the possibility of fabrication is minimal.

Self-Defence Cannot Be Stretched to Justify Mob Violence, Says Court
Attempting to invoke Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the defence argued that the act was within the right of private defence of property. The Court categorically rejected this line of reasoning. It held that even if the men were attempting theft, that could not justify the kind of violence inflicted. Informing the police was the lawful response—not taking matters into one’s own hands.

The judgment observed that indiscriminate assault with weapons like PVC pipes and wooden sticks, by multiple persons in concert, could not be condoned under the law. The accused had formed a common intention to punish the victims without legal authority. The brutality of the act itself ruled out any presumption of lawful self-defence.

Grant of Bail to Co-Accused Does Not Justify Similar Relief Here, Rules the Court
Addressing the argument that two co-accused were granted bail on the same day, the Court distinguished the facts. In those cases, the co-accused had not been named in the complaint, medical papers, or dying declaration. In contrast, the present applicant’s name featured consistently from the beginning. The Court held that when names emerge at the earliest opportunity, the presumption is strong that they were genuinely involved.

Justice Suthar also underlined that bail cannot be claimed as a matter of parity when the facts and evidence differ materially.

The Court referred to several rulings by the Supreme Court, including CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, Ajwar v. Waseem, and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, to reiterate that in grave offences like double murder, courts must exercise restraint while considering bail. The liberty of the accused, though important, must be balanced with the gravity of the crime and the interests of justice.

The Court also highlighted that trial in the case had already commenced, with several key witnesses examined. There was no undue delay to warrant bail on procedural grounds.

Concluding that the role of the applicant was prima facie established and that the act committed was heinous and lawless, the High Court refused to grant regular bail. Justice Suthar directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, keeping in view that the applicant was an under-trial prisoner.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2025