A Mumbai court has refused bail to Mihir Shah, the son of a former Shiv Sena politician, in the BMW hit-and-run case, reported PTI. The court, while denying bail to Shah, the main accused in the case, cited “merciless behaviour”. It also added that the accused demonstrates himself above the law due to his “financial and muscular power”.
If the accused, who is in jail for more than a year, is released on bail, it will send a wrong message to society, the court noted in its detailed order made available on Thursday.
Last year, on July 4, Shah was allegedly rammed his BMW car into a two-wheeler in Mumbai`s Worli area. The accident led to the death of a 45-year-old woman, Kaveri Nakhwa, and left her husband, Pradeep, seriously injured. Shah was arrested three days after the fatal mishap.
The accused filed a bail application seeking mercy from the court. However, the court rejected the bail plea of the 24-year-old last week, citing various reasons, reported PTI.
Shah’s driver, Rajrishi Bidawat, was also present in the luxury car at the time of the crash.
Shah`s driver has also been named as an accused and both of them are currently in jail under judicial custody. Additional Sessions Judge RS Aradhye had rejected the driver`s plea also last week.
Shah is accused of speeding off towards the Bandra-Worli Sea Link after the accident even as the woman remained on the car`s bonnet and then got entangled in its wheels, dragging her for a distance of more than 1.5 km.
It is alleged that the former politician`s son had interchanged the driver`s seat to escape blame for the fatal crash, which was captured on several CCTVs installed in nearby areas.
Shah had sought bail on grounds that the investigation in the case was over and police had filed a charge sheet about 10 months ago, and thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail.
He has already undergone a long period of incarceration (398 days), and the trial in the case has not commenced yet, his bail plea stated.
However, opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued, “Accused persons are influential personalities, and hence the possibility of them tampering with evidence and issuing threats to the witnesses was high. The possibility of the accused absconding, if granted bail, cannot be ruled out, the prosecution argued.”
The prosecution also cited the pendency of a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court by the victim`s husband, seeking invocation of a murder charge against the accused.
The court, after hearing both sides, stated, “The overall facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that how the accused behaved in a merciless manner meant to say that anything can be done on the basis of financial and muscular power, and law is not above them.”
(With inputs from PTI)
