Family members of Dixit Solanki, who died aboard a vessel in the West Asia conflict, have moved the Bombay High Court for DNA profiling to confirm the identity of the charred remains brought to Mumbai on Sunday. (File)
Granting bail to the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) driver, who allegedly rammed a bus into pedestrians and vehicles in Kurla, leading to nine deaths in 2024, the Bombay High Court “prima facie” observed while he had the experience of driving other buses, “shockingly,” no practical training was given to him to drive an electric bus on the road.
A single‑judge bench of Justice R M Joshi on March 30 granted bail to Sanjay Datta More, who was driving an electric bus near Kurla railway station on December 9, 2024, the detailed order of which was made available on Thursday.
“Prima facie perusal of the chargesheet indicates that the applicant had enough experience of driving buses, though not of driving an electric bus,” the HC observed, adding that the BEST Undertaking was required to impart at least seven‑day training to More and other drivers as per the contract.
“Prima facie material on record indicates that for the reasons best known to the administration of BEST undertaking, the period of training was reduced to three days, and shockingly, no practical training was given to the drivers. There could absolutely be no justification for not providing adequate training to the drivers before they are called upon to drive buses carrying passengers and on busy roads in Mumbai,” Justice Joshi observed.
“Apparently, the administration and persons responsible for the said decision of curtailing the training period and not giving field training i.e., driving buses on the road, have led to the occurrence of such a painful incident.”
The court further observed that while there was “no doubt” that nine persons lost their lives and others sustained injuries in the incident, the question was whether the alleged act would be considered for the grant of bail.
The judge went on to note, “Similarly, in case it is found that the act by itself does not prima facie amount to an offence of murder punishable under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), however, solely for the reason of the number of casualties, the bail application could be rejected.”
Story continues below this ad
The HC further observed that the “decisive factor” was to ascertain whether prima facie the case was covered under Section 105 of BNS (with punishment of life imprisonment or 5–10 year jail term) as per prosecution’s claim or Section 106 (death caused by negligence with five years maximum punishment) of BNS as per applicant’s advocates Advait U Shukla, Neetu Singh, and Amandeep Singh Sra.
Maintaining that the prosecution did not claim that More was driving the bus unauthorisedly, the judge observed that “it is easy to say that the applicant should have refused to drive the electric bus for want of sufficient knowledge.”
However, in reality, the judge said, when employment was “scarcely available” and when the person is required to maintain his family, it becomes “impossible” to refuse superiors’ orders, for fear of loss of employment.
The HC observed that the prosecution had not claimed that the bus driver was under the influence of liquor or any drug. It found “prima facie substance” in the applicant’s contention that the offence could be covered under Section 106 of BNS “for want of any knowledge or intention.”
Story continues below this ad
The bench further observed that More was in jail for a year and five months, and none of the 96 witnesses had been examined by the trial court to date, and therefore, there was “no reason to believe that the trial is likely to be completed within a reasonable time.”
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
