Tathya Patel’s father denied interim bail in ISKCON Bridge accident case
Opposing the grant of the temporary bail, the investigating officer submitted before the court that Pragnesh had previously taken treatment on November 4, 2019 “and for the last three years and nine months…has not taken any treatment”.
3 min read
Tathya Patel was arrested last week. (Express File Photo) An Ahmedabad district court Monday refused to grant temporary bail to the father of the key accused in the SG Highway accident case that killed nine people last month.
The plea moved by Nilam Patel, the wife of key accused Pragnesh Patel, sought that her husband be released on temporary bail for 30 days as he “is suffering from cancer since long and his treatment is going on in Mumbai” and he has to go to Tata Memorial Hospital every month for his treatment. Nilam also submitted that she is “in a helpless condition in the absence of her son and husband.”
Her son Tathya Patel — the driver of the Jaguar that mowed down nine persons and injured 13 others on the ISKCON Bridge — is the other key accused in the case.
The court of principal district judge DM Vyas rejected the temporary bail plea after taking into account the opinion of the resident medical officer of the Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute (GCRI) who had stated that the treatment is available at the institute. The court also directed GCRI to provide necessary treatment and produce a medical report of the accused within 10 days.
Opposing the grant of the temporary bail, the investigating officer submitted before the court that Pragnesh had previously taken treatment on November 4, 2019 “and for the last three years and nine months…has not taken any treatment”. It was further pointed out that there is no evidence that any physical check-up of the accused was conducted at the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai after February 2019.
It was also submitted that the appointment slip dated May 15 fixing an appointment at Tata Memorial Hospital for August 23, as produced by Nilam, appears to be “a doubtful one and appears to have been produced with an intention to get temporary bail”. It was also pointed out that in the regular bail application, filed earlier and rejected by the Ahmedabad district court, there was no mention of such ailment.
Both Pragnesh and Tathya are facing charges under sections 279 (rash driving), 337 and 338 (hurt and grievous hurt caused by rash and negligent act), 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 506 (2) (criminal intimidation), 114 (abetment) and 188 (disobedience to order promulgated by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code. They have also been charged under sections 177 (breaking traffic laws), 184 (dangerous driving) and 134 (b) (duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
You May Like
Photos
