"God Forbid Us": Bombay High Court Voices Concern Over Accused Being Released On Technical Grounds, Even In Serious Offences

"God forbid us if we go by the technicalities" the Bombay High Court remarked on Monday while expressing anguish over the fact that in several serious offences, accused are released only on a technical ground that the investigating officer did not give them the 'grounds of arrest' in writing.

The remark was made by a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while hearing a plea filed by Mihir Shah, prime accused in the Worli hit-and-run case, who has challenged his arrest stating that the same is illegal since the I.O did not give him the 'grounds of arrest' in writing.

Shah, is the son of Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's close aide, Rajesh Shah. He was arrested on July 9, two days after he dragged a woman by his car while driving his BMW car, in an inebriated condition during the wee hours of July 7 in Mumbai's plush Worli area. 

While hearing the matter,  the judges noted that in several cases, the accused get relief only on this technical ground and they are released from the custody of the police, which somehow hampers the probe. The judges expressed the need for 'balancing' the issue as not in every case, particularly in a serious offence, an accused can be released merely because the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him or her.  

"We need to strike a balance....sometimes offence is very serious like in the instant case, the woman was dragged and then you (accused) filed away... What kind of citizen are you? You say your fundamental rights have been violated what about their (victim's) fundamental rights?" a visibly enraged Justice Dangre observed.

Upon being asked, Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar told the bench that there is ample evidence with the investigating team including the CCTV footage, which shows that Shah was in the driving seat and his driver Rajrishi Bidawat was sitting next to him. He further pointed out that even the witnesses have identified the two, who after committing he offence, fled from the spot. He added that the accused Shah, was aware that he committed a heinous offence and thus changed his appearance. 

Appearing for Shah and his driver advocates Rishi Bhuta and Niranjan Mundargi argued that the IO did not provide their clients with the grounds of arrest in written form and thus violated their rights under Articles 21 and 22.

Countering the submission, Venegavkar pointed out that the IO had orally told them about the grounds of their arrest and also explained to them their legal rights. However, he argued that since this not being an economic offence but a grave offence, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha would not apply to the instant case.

Agreeing with Venegavkar, Justice Dangre said, "This we see that even in most serious offences probe team does not give the grounds of arrest and on that technical issue, the accused is released. Gravity of the offence is to be considered. God forbid us if we go by such technical issues in such serious offences."

The judges, therefore, ordered the IO to responsibly make a statement, on an affidavit, spelling out as to the manner in which the ground was communicated and whether the panchas were present while arresting the two accused in the case. The matter will be next heard on October 9.

"Let this be a test case...We will examine whether in such cases, the seriousness of the offence also needs to be considered or not. The fundamental rights of the victims too need to be taken into account," Justice Dangre said while adjourning the matter.