Bombay High Court Ponders Legal Formalities in Arrest of Shiv Sena Leader’s Son in BMW Hit & Run Case

The Bombay High Court has reserved its order on a petition filed by Mihir Shah, the son of Shiv Sena leader Rajesh Shah, who is contesting his arrest following a fatal hit-and-run incident involving his BMW. The court is set to deliver its judgment on November 21, as announced by a division bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande.

During the proceedings, the bench questioned the necessity of informing an accused of the grounds for their arrest, especially in instances where the offense is witnessed, such as being caught in the act. The judges suggested that in such clear-cut situations, the requirement might merely serve as an “empty formality.”

READ ALSO  हस्तलिपि रिपोर्ट ना मँगवाने पर जालसाजी मामले में बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट ने बरी किया

Justice Dangre remarked, “If you are caught red-handed, then you don’t know the grounds of arrest? How do you say the arrest is vitiated that grounds are not communicated? According to us, it is an empty formality. Fact and circumstances in each case… you bang the lady, you were in such a hurry you left your fastag card? This is a testing case. For example, if murder has taken place the accused is aware. But the formality is that he should be informed so he is aware when taken in remand. In such cases, a chain of circumstances is there. Whether despite having knowledge, will formality have to be completed?”

Play button

The incident that led to Shah’s arrest occurred on July 9, when he allegedly struck a two-wheeler with his BMW on Annie Besant Road in Mumbai’s Worli area. The collision resulted in the death of 45-year-old Kaveri Nakhwa and injuries to her husband, Pradeep. According to reports, after hitting the motorcycle, Shah fled towards the Bandra-Worli Sea Link, with the woman tragically getting caught in the wheels of his car, dragging her for over 1.5 kilometers.

READ ALSO  बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट ने सप्ताहांत के लिए बेदखली नोटिस पर रोक लगाई

Shah has argued that his legal rights were violated during the arrest, claiming a breach of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He contends that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time, which he asserts is contrary to legal requirements.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles