ISKCON flyover accident: Gujarat HC reserves verdict in bail plea filed by accused Pragnesh Patel

Opposing the bail plea before the court of Justice M R Mengdey, public prosecutor Mitesh Amin pointed towards the conduct of Pragnesh. Relying on a witness statement recorded before the police, Amin pointed out that Pragnesh, after arriving at the scene of the offence, had purportedly told his wife to “bring the revolver” and had allegedly started threatening the witnesses at the scene.

Amin also pointed to Pragnesh’s non-cooperation in undergoing a medical test at an Ahmedabad hospital after he had claimed that he was suffering from cancer and required consultation at the Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, while seeking temporary bail.

Meanwhile, Pragnesh, represented by senior advocate I H Syed, submitted that the prosecution relied on a witness statement. However, the witness had first recorded his statement on July 20 where he had made no such mention of Pragnesh allegedly asking his wife to bring a revolver and the said account was only made as an improvement in a second statement recorded by the witness five days later.

Syed also pointed out that no provisions under the Arms Act have been invoked. He added that the Gujarat High Court’s rejection of Pragnesh’s temporary bail plea is also presently under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Both father and son 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 Vehicles Act.