Utter Disregard To Any Humanitarian Conduct: Bombay HC Upholds Arrests In BMW Hit-And-Run Case Despite Non-Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest

The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the accused challenging the legality of their arrests and subsequent remand in connection with the BMW hit-and-run accident which claimed the life of a victim. The accused argued that their arrests were illegal as the grounds for arrest were not communicated in writing.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed, “For these reasons, though we record that the grounds of arrest admittedly are not communicated to the petitioners and as far as Mihir Shah is concerned, he was absconding and was required to be arrested and produced before the Magistrate, when the remand application clearly discerned to him the reasons for his arrest, we are of the firm view that in a serious offence of this nature, when the presence of both the petitioners is established in the offending car which is responsible for the mishap, they cannot take the benefit that the grounds of arrest are not communicated to them in writing.”

Advocate Niranjan Mundargi appeared for the Accused, while PP H.S. Venegavkar represented the Respondents.

On July 7, 2024, the victim was fatally injured after being struck by a speeding white BMW near Worli, while riding pillion on a scooter driven by her husband. She was dragged for nearly 1.5 kilometers before her body was abandoned at the Worli Sea Link T-Junction. Despite being alerted by eyewitnesses, the driver fled the scene.

The police investigation identified the BMW and CCTV footage confirmed the presence of the accused in the vehicle. Both were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed after evidence corroborated their involvement.

The High Court noted the pleading raised by the accused about the grounds of arrest not being communicated and observed that both the accused were “conscious of their serious act of hitting the moped driven by complainant by the BMW car which was being driven by Mihir Shah with Rajrishi sitting next to the driving seat and the car being driven in a rash and negligent manner, with Mihir having consumed alcohol, when the mishap occurred. Instead of rendering assistance to the complainant and his wife, the victims of mishap, the accused persons chose to drive the vehicle continuing the high speed, till the time when the vehicle broke down.”

Noting that although the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flowed from Article 22(1) of the Constitution prescribing protection against arrest and detention, by providing that no person who is arrested can be detained in custody without being informed of the same, the Division Bench held that the accused cannot be “permitted to take advantage on the account that the ‘grounds of arrest’ are not communicated in writing.”

“Despite the fact that we are conscious of the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and which we are duty bound to follow, we are making an exception in case of the present petitioners, as they were aware of the consequences of their gruesome act and since the petitioner Rajrishi was apprehended with the offending car, which itself offered a proof of his presence in the car, which was noticed in continuation, in the CCTV footages after the accident had occurred, and as far as petitioner no.2 chose to flee from the spot and remained absconding till he was arrested, we are not inclined to grant them the benefit of the orders of the Apex Court,” the Court stated.

The Court observed that in a case like this, the right of the victim must also be prioritised as “this is a case where we feel that acting in utter derogation of respect to human life, the petitioners, mowed down, the wife of the complainant and in utter disregard to any humanitarian conduct, ruthlessly the vehicle was driven with her body being entangled between the bonnet and the wheels. Having no regard to human life…”

Consequently, the Court stated, “Both the petitioners, who had committed the accident which was seen by the eye witnesses and the fact that the fastag was swiped by the person driving the BMW at the sea link toll, was found to be in the name of Mihir Shah, considering the chain of circumstances and its continuity, which was well within the knowledge of the petitioners, and the attempt on part of accused Mihir Shah to flee the course of justice, apprehending his arrest, as he was aware about the charge he was bound to face, we are of the clear opinion that since the grounds of arrest in a situation like this, which are well within the knowledge of the offenders, they shall not be permitted to take advantage on the account that the ‘grounds of arrest’ are not communicated in writing.”

Accordingly, 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

Click here to read/download the Judgment