Back
High Court Rips Into 'Casual' Police Probe, Frees Driver in Deadly Road Horror
In a scathing rebuke to investigative lapses, the granted bail to Lakhan Soni @ Lakkhu , a 24-year-old businessman accused of driving a white Nissan Magnite that plowed into laborers at a road construction site near Sigma Kanha Colony, Saliwada, Jabalpur. The tragedy killed five workers and severely injured 11 others. Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar , in a order, highlighted the absence of direct evidence linking Soni to the crash, calling the police probe "casual" amid national media echoes of the court's frustration with sloppy policing.
The Night That Shattered Lives
The incident unfolded on a fateful day when the SUV, registered as MP 20 XB 1460, allegedly ran over workers at the site. Police traced the vehicle to Deepak Soni , Lakhan's brother, who was apprehended first. Deepak claimed Lakhan had borrowed it. Lakhan was arrested on , and has remained in judicial custody since, facing charges under and . A final report was filed post-investigation, but trial proceedings loomed long.
The core question: Was there sufficient evidence to keep the young accused locked up, or did investigative shortcomings warrant bail under ?
Defense Strikes at Shoddy Evidence, Prosecution Clings to Gravity
, aided by , argued Soni was falsely implicated. Key points:
- No eyewitness identified Lakhan as the driver.
- Reliance solely on his police statement (inadmissible) and co-accused Deepak's claim.
- Unrecorded statement of passenger Vedika , who was in the vehicle.
- Clean record, family ties, no flight risk, trial delays causing hardship, and readiness to cooperate.
Panel Lawyer Ankita Khare for the State stressed the offence's gravity—five deaths, multiple injuries—but conceded no prior criminal history. Advocate Neeraj Ashar represented the objector. Despite opposition, the court noted the State's lawyer fairly admitted Soni's clean slate and business background.
A Probe Too Lax for Such Carnage
Delving into the case diary, Justice Kalgaonkar found the investigation sorely wanting. The SUV was seized from Deepak, not Lakhan directly. No eye-witness pinned Lakhan behind the wheel, and crucially, Vedika's statement was ignored.
"
, there is no direct incriminating material against the present applicant,"
the judge observed, underscoring that prosecution's case hinged on inadmissible custodial disclosures.
External reports amplified this: Media outlets like those in other sources quoted the bench slamming the "casual manner" of the probe in a case claiming five lives, aligning seamlessly with the judgment's tone.
No precedents were cited, but the ruling pivots on bail principles—balancing offence severity against personal liberty, trial timelines, and evidence strength under BNSS provisions.
Key Observations
"It is unfortunate that a casual investigation is conducted in such a horrific incident."
"The material on record reveals that the applicant is implicated merely on the basis of information given by co-accused Deepak Soni in police custody."
", there is no direct incriminating material against the present applicant in the case diary."
"There appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the young applicant."
Bail with Strings: Freedom, But Under Watch
The court allowed the bail application, ordering Lakhan's release on a Rs. 1,00,000 personal bond with one surety, subject to strict conditions:
- Mandatory court appearances.
- No similar offences or witness tampering.
- Compliance with witness examination rules under (akin to CrPC 309).
These hold till trial's end, with cancellation possible for breaches. Implications? It signals courts' intolerance for slipshod probes in high-stakes accidents, potentially easing bail for those without direct evidence while pressuring better policing. For victims' families, a reminder that justice demands rigor; for the accused, a shot at normalcy amid unresolved grief.
This ruling, tagged with Neutral Citation , underscores liberty's primacy when evidence falters.
