Bombay High Court Supports Arrests in BMW Hit-and-Run Case, Ignoring Humanitarian Concerns Due to Lack of Communication on Arrest Reasons.
The Bombay High Court confirmed the arrests in the BMW hit-and-run case, dismissing the accused’s argument that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest. The court noted their “complete disregard for humanitarian conduct.” The Writ Petitions from the accused, which challenged the legality of their arrests and remand related to the incident that resulted in a victim’s death, were rejected. The accused claimed their arrests were unlawful because they did not receive written notice of the grounds for their arrest. A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, stated that although the reasons for arrest were not formally communicated, it was clear that one of the accused, Mihir Shah, was evading capture and needed to be arrested. The court emphasized that in such a serious case, where both accused were confirmed to be in the car involved in the accident, they could not claim that the lack of written notice invalidated their arrests.
Advocate Niranjan Mundargi represented the accused, while PP H.S. Venegavkar acted for the respondents. On July 7, 2024, a woman was tragically killed after being hit by a fast-moving white BMW in Worli while riding on a scooter with her husband. Her body was dragged for about 1.5 kilometers before being left at the Worli Sea Link T-Junction. The driver fled the scene despite witnesses alerting the authorities. Police investigations led to the identification of the BMW, and CCTV footage confirmed the accused were in the vehicle. Both were arrested, and a charge sheet was submitted after evidence supported their involvement.
The High Court acknowledged the accused’s claim that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest. It noted that both accused were aware of their serious actions when they hit the complainant’s moped with a BMW car driven by Mihir Shah, who had Rajrishi beside him. The car was being driven recklessly, and Mihir had been drinking when the accident happened. Instead of helping the complainant and his wife, the accused chose to speed away until the car broke down.
The Court pointed out that while Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest, the accused cannot benefit from the lack of written communication regarding the grounds of their arrest. The Division Bench stated that, despite recognizing the legal principles set by the Supreme Court, they would make an exception for these petitioners. They were aware of the serious consequences of their actions, and Rajrishi was caught with the car, which served as evidence of his involvement, as seen in CCTV footage after the accident. Additionally, the second petitioner fled the scene and remained at large until his arrest. Therefore, the Court decided not to grant them the advantages of the Supreme Court’s orders.
The Court noted that in situations like this, the victim’s rights must be prioritized. They stated, “This case shows a complete lack of respect for human life. The petitioners ran over the complainant’s wife, showing no concern for humanity as the vehicle drove with her body caught between the bonnet and the wheels. There was no regard for human life.” The Court further explained, “Both petitioners were involved in the accident witnessed by others. The fastag used by the driver of the BMW at the toll was registered to Mihir Shah. Given the circumstances and the knowledge the petitioners had, along with Mihir Shah’s attempt to evade justice knowing the charges he faced, we believe that in such cases, where the offenders are aware of the reasons for arrest, they cannot claim ignorance just because the ‘grounds of arrest’ were not provided in writing.” As a result, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Rajrishi Bindawat v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:45223-DB)
Appearance:
Accused: Advocates Niranjan Mundargi, Ujjawal Gandhi, Keral Mehta, Ashish Dubey, K.R. Shah, Ankita Bamboli, Parth Govilkar, Kinjal Desai, Rishi Bhuta, Neha Patil, Bhumika Khandelwal, Saakshi Jha, Prateek Dutta, Risha Rathod, Omer Farooq Khwaja, Vaishnavi Jhaveri and Bhavi Kapoor
Respondents: PP H.S. Venegavkar; APP M.M. Deshmukh and S.S. Kaushik
