‘Mumbai Police or judicial magic?,’ asks HC after hit-and-run case pending since 2022 solved within days after court rap

On August 17, 2022, Aman Jha, 29, was killed in a hit-and-run accident in Malad. Jha worked at a private firm in Mumbai and lived with his parents and two younger sisters. On the day of the incident, he was on his way to a temple with his mother Babita who was following him on another scooter, while his friend was riding pillion with him.

On August 5, the court had prima facie observed that hardly any investigation was carried out in the accident in which Jha lost his life. “In 2025, some photographs of a few trucks were taken, and six sets of photographs were placed before us which, prima facie, appear to be an eyewash to suggest that the police authorities had investigated the matter and found no clues,” the court said.

Babita had filed a petition in the high court in 2024 after the police failed to make any arrest, claiming that the driver was not traced. Jha’s family had questioned the inaction, asking why the police were claiming that the truck driver was not identified despite the presence of CCTV cameras across the city.

On Tuesday, the court was informed that based on the CCTV footage, the vehicle involved in the accident was found to be a goods truck. It was submitted that the footage showed that the truck had the name of a logistics company on one side and the alphabet ‘A’ on the other. Based on this information, the police told the court that the company providing the trucks was traced.

Investigators visited Vapi in Gujarat and traced the company, where they were informed that three such trucks with the ‘A’ symbol were provided to carry goods. The police told the court that based on e-challans, the owner was traced and through him the driver was also located.

A chargesheet was filed against the driver on August 21, the court was told. An investigator present in court said that the driver had claimed that he did not inform the owner of the truck of the accident due to fear of losing his job.

The court questioned the police on why these efforts were not done from 2022, when the driver could be traced from CCTV footage and e-challans. Advocate Bharat Bhatia, representing Babita, told court that this was negligence on the part of the police and the delay and gaps in the probe will help the accused get away during the trial. He also referred to responses filed by the police before the high court, including by a Deputy Commissioner of Police, stating that the accused was not traced.

“Every step was taken to discard evidence. The police first said that there was no CCTV. The scooter being driven by the victim is missing, with the police claiming it was not seized. Then where is the vehicle? Why was the procedure not followed?” advocate Bhatia sought to know before the court.

The court said that it will be expediting the trial and the affidavits filed by the police before the high court are to be considered for the limited purpose of these proceedings, not the trial. It said that the police investigation now “seems convincing” and links have been established.

The court added that the victim’s family can approach the Mumbai Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for compensation. It also said that it will decide on ordering a departmental inquiry against the officers involved. The court has reserved the petition for orders.