Nanda, two friends to face trial

While Nanda is in custody — his bail application has been rejected by the High Court too — the rest are out on bail.

The first information report registered against Sanjeev, Manik and Siddharth was under the non-bailable section (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). If found guilty, they can face up to 10 years in prison or life imprisonment.

Most of the defence arguments were rejected by ASJ Bhasin. He, however, agreed with the defence — and with public prosecutor I U Khan — on one point: Nanda ran away from the accident spot in a state of panic and as a result, some persons were run over by mistake.

It was this agreement which led the prosecution to bring down its demand from culpable homicide not amounting to murder to intentionally causing death. “I am in agreement with the submissions of the public prosecutor and the defence counsel that this subsequent act of Sanjeev Nanda must have been submitted in a panicky state of mind after having knocked down seven persons.”

Throughout the arguments, the defence was pressing for a case of rash and negligent driving.

Manik’s presence in the car was a topic of debate. His counsel had tried to prove that he was not in the car when the accident took place. His counsel backed the argument with the absence of a test identification parade. The prosecution said: “The test identification parade could not be held in respect of Manik because he was released on bail on January 12. And the prime eyewitness, Sunil Kulkarni, had come forward to give a statement three days later.” The judge said the absence of a test identification parade could not decide on Manik’s release at this stage.

Kulkarni had allegedly witnessed Manik telling Nanda to escape. The judge held: “In these circumstances, it can be said that accused Manik also shared the common intention with accused Sanjeev Nanda in the commission of the aforesaid crime.”

Although no witness has substantiated Siddharth’s presence in the car, he had told the police he was present at the time of the accident. “This fact, coupled with the car’s presence in his house, shows that he was present in the car at the time of the accident. If that be the case, his not taking any step to prevent the above occurrence as well as to stop Manik and Sanjeev from running away shows he shared the criminal knowledge,” the judge said.