SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Neela Gokhale, J.
Mihir Rajesh Shah - Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Bail Application No. 3589 of 2025
Decided On : 21-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jay K. Bharadwaj, Harsh Ramchandani, Disha Bajaj and Swarali Joglekar
For the Respondent: Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, with Anuja Gotad, Ms. Anamika Malhotra, Poonam Bhosale, Megha Bajoria, Manisha Tidke, Yogesh Dabke, APPs.
For the Intervenor/Complainant : Mr. Dilip Satale, with S Patel and Padma C.,
Mr. Ashok Kamble, PI, with Sampat Chemate, API, with Atul Kumbhar, PSI, attached to Worli Police Station, present.

The court denied bail due to the applicant's intoxication, reckless driving causing death, and potential to tamper with evidence, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 134(A), 134

(B), 184, 187; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 105, 125(b), 238, 281, 324(4) - Bail application for applicant charged with serious offences following a fatal accident involving the deceased - Applicant alleged to have been intoxicated and driving recklessly, dragging the victim for a distance. (Paras 1, 12)

(B) Bail - Consideration factors - Court held that the nature and gravity of the offences, conduct post-accident, and potential for tampering with evidence preclude granting bail. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, while driving under the influence, collided with a scooter, resulting in the death of the victim, his panic leading to attempts to evade justice. The deceased was trapped under the car as the applicant drove away. (Paras 2.1, 2.2, 12)

Findings of Court:
Conduct and intoxication of the applicant, alongside evidence of guilt, confirmed a high likelihood of tampering with evidence and witness intimidation. (Paras 11, 14)

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail given the serious nature of the offence and potential evidence tampering.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the applicant's actions after the accident indicated a willingness to evade responsibility and risk influencing witness testimonies, justifying the denial of bail. (Paras 11, 14)

Result: Application dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court denied bail based on intoxication, reckless driving causing death, and potential to tamper with evidence (!) (!) - The conduct post-accident and likelihood of witness tampering/evidence destruction were key considerations (!) (!) - Application dismissed for bail; liberty to renew after key eyewitness evidence is recorded (!) (!)

What is the primary legal question addressed in denying bail in this intoxicated driving case?

What are the factors considered by the court in denying bail due to risk of tampering with evidence and witness intimidation?

What are the consequences or relief granted or denied to the applicant on bail in this judgment?


Table of Content
1. bail application arises from a serious road accident. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defense emphasizes lack of intent and panic reaction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. prosecution argues on intoxication and potential evidence tampering. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. court assesses evidence and conduct impacting bail decision. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. bail application dismissed; conditions for future applications stated. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale, J.

1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with C.R. No. 378 of 2024 dated 7th July 2024 registered with the Worli Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 134(A), 134(B), 184, 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sections 105 , 125(b), 238, 281 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS’).

2. The First Informant is one Pradeep Nakhwa, husband of the deceased and the Intervenor in the present Application. The facts of the case, as discerned from the FIR, are as under :-

2.1 On 7th July 2024, Mihir Shah, the Applicant herein, was driving a white BMW car, at a high speed, which violently collided with the First Informant's scooter from behind. The First Informant was riding the scooter with his wife, Kaveri (‘Victim/Deceased’) as pillion, going towards Worli from Peddar Road. While the First Informant was riding his scooter cautiously on the left side of the road, the said BMW car hit the scooter from behind. The impact propelled the First Informant and his wife onto the car’s bonnet. On seeing two people on his bonnet, the person driving the car, applied brakes to halt the car. The First Informant saw a 20-25 year- old man in the driver's seat and a middle-aged man, sitting next to him. The person driving the car is identified as the Applicant herein and the person sitting next to him, as the driver employed by the Applicant. The sudden application of the brakes resulted in the First Informant being thrown off the bonnet, and his wife being entangled between the car's front left wheel and the front fender.

2.2 The First Informant and his wife screamed in agony. Despite the screams and the deceased being stuck under the wheels of the car, the Applicant heedlessly persisted in his reckless flight, dragging the Victim/Deceased with the car for about 1½ - 2 Kms. ahead. The First Informant shouted at the driver to stop the car, indicating that his wife was stuck under the wheels of the car. The First Informant ran behind the car frantically, trying to persuade the car driver to stop the car. The Applicant, however, drove away in high speed, dragging the stuck Victim/Deceased with him.

2.3 The First Informant hailed a taxi. He followed the car in the taxi, but the high-speed BMW car was not to be seen. Ultimately, the First Informant went to the Worli Police Station and narrated the incident to the police. The Police received a wireless message that a body of an unknown lady was lying on the sea-link road. The body was taken to Nair Hospital. The First Informant, accompanied by the Police, went to Nair Hospital and identified the body to be of his wife. The body was mangled and had suffered serious injuries. Pursuant to the complaint noted by the Police, the FIR was registered.

2.4 Initial investigative steps concluded that the BMW car was driven by the Applicant. Spot Panchanama was drawn and the CCTV footages along the road were collected. CCTV footages revealed that the offending car proceeded towards Bandra from the sea-link. The Police traced the route taken by the said car. At the Kalanagar Junction flyover, they found the car which had broken down. There were two people standing next to the car and a towing van. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that one of the two people was Rajrishi Rajendra Singh Bindawat, the driver employed by the Applicant's family, and the other was Rajesh Shah, the Applicant’s father. Bindawat informed that the car had met with an accident. Both were taken to the Police Station.

2.5 Further investigation reve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top