‘His conduct doesn’t inspire confidence that he is not likely to tamper with evidence’: HC rejects bail plea in Worli ‘hit-and-run’ case

Justice Neela Gokhale said that Shah’s further actions indicate his intent to escape the consequences and avoid arrest, including exchanging seats with his driver present on the passenger seat, calling his father and leaving the spot, ‘indicate the predilection to tamper evidence and/or intimidate witnesses’.

“Although the investigation is complete and the chargesheet is filed, the conduct of Mihir does not inspire confidence in this court that he is not likely to tamper with the evidence or intimidate witnesses. Although Mihir is in custody for about one year and four months, the maximum punishment provided under Section 105 of BNS is between 10 years and life imprisonment. Hence, it cannot be said that Mihir has suffered long incarceration,” the court said.

The Mumbai Police have booked Shah under sections including 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

On July 7, 2024, Shah, driving a BMW car, allegedly rammed it into a two-wheeler on which Pradip Nakhawa, 50, and his wife Kaveri Nakhawa, 45, were travelling, around 5.25 am in Worli. Kaveri was allegedly dragged for nearly 2 km after she got stuck between the car’s bumper and tire. She was later flung onto the road, leading to her death. As per the police, Shah allegedly switched seats with his driver, Rajrishi Bindawat. When they reached Bandra, the car broke down and Shah called his father, Rajesh, who allegedly came and assisted his son to flee. Shah was arrested after two days.

Additional public prosecutor M M Deshmukh told court that Shah had escaped to ‘reduce the content’ of alcohol in his body, which amounted to tampering with evidence. She also said that Shah has political influence as his father ‘is an active worker in the ruling dispensation in the state’. Shah’s lawyers, senior advocate Ashok Mundargi and Jay K Bharadwaj, said that he changed seats as he panicked and was fearful of getting arrested. They said that Section 105 BNS cannot be invoked against Shah as he did not know the deceased, Kaveri, and had no intention or motive to cause her death.

The HC said that this is not the stage to decide the applicability of the section and it can be decided at an appropriate stage by the trial court. The court also noted that there were prima facie eyewitnesses including a guard who had seen Pradip asking Shah to stop the car after his wife was stuck under it, and others who saw the car being driven at a high speed.