Introduction:

In a significant legal development in the notorious Worli Hit-and-Run case, the Bombay High Court recently dismissed the petitions filed by Mihir Shah, the prime accused, and his driver Rajrishi Bindawat, challenging their arrests. The two were arrested in connection with a horrific incident on July 7, 2023, in which a woman was dragged by Shah’s BMW car while he was driving under the influence of alcohol in Mumbai’s upscale Worli area. Shah, the son of Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s close associate Rajesh Shah, and Bindawat filed the petitions claiming that they had not been provided with the “grounds of arrest” in writing, a requirement mandated by the Supreme Court. The division bench, comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the seriousness of the crime and stating that technicalities should not be allowed to undermine the investigation. The case has raised critical questions about the balance between the rights of the accused and the severity of the crimes they are charged with.

Accused’s Arguments:

• Mihir Shah and Rajrishi Bindawat’s legal counsel, led by advocates Rishi Bhuta and Niranjan Mundargi, filed the petitions challenging the legality of their arrests. Their primary contention was that the police had failed to provide them with the “grounds of arrest” in writing, as stipulated by the Supreme Court in its guidelines concerning arrests. The petitioners argued that the absence of written grounds violated their fundamental rights, specifically under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which safeguards against arbitrary arrest and ensures that a person is informed of the reasons for their detention.
• Non-Compliance with Legal Procedure: The counsel argued that the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest was a serious procedural lapse and that any arrest made without adhering to this requirement should be considered illegal. They emphasized that the accused were entitled to this information as a fundamental protection against wrongful detention.
• Technicalities and Fundamental Rights: The defence also argued that the procedural failure to provide written grounds of arrest was not just a minor technicality, but a significant violation of the accused’s rights. They further contended that the case should be looked at from the perspective of ensuring that the rights of the accused are upheld, even in serious criminal matters.

Prosecution’s Arguments:

On the other hand, the State, represented by Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar, argued that the seriousness of the offence and the broader public interest in ensuring justice should take precedence over procedural errors. The prosecution strongly opposed the petitions, stating that the failure to provide written grounds of arrest was a minor procedural issue that should not lead to the release of the accused.

• The seriousness of the Offense: The prosecution highlighted the gravity of the crime, emphasizing that the accused’s actions led to the victim being dragged by the car in a violent and traumatic manner. The case involved a major public safety issue, as Shah, under the influence of alcohol, exhibited reckless behaviour that endangered a woman’s life.
• Balancing Legal Rights and Public Interest: Public Prosecutor Venegavkar pointed out that in serious cases like this, it was crucial to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly in cases where the crime was heinous and the public outcry was significant. He argued that releasing the accused on a technical ground could severely hamper the investigation and send a wrong message about accountability for such crimes.
• Risk of Impacting the Investigation: The prosecution also warned that releasing the accused on a procedural technicality could undermine the ongoing investigation and the subsequent legal proceedings. The actions of the accused, which led to the incident, had raised critical concerns about road safety and accountability, making it important for the accused to remain in custody for a thorough investigation.

Court’s Judgment and Rationale:

The Bombay High Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, dismissed the petitions challenging the arrests of the accused. Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande delivered a clear judgment, rejecting the defence’s contention that the failure to provide written grounds of arrest was grounds for releasing the accused.

• Inadequacy of Technical Grounds: Justice Dangre, speaking for the bench, pointed out that in many cases, accused individuals have sought release on technical grounds, such as the failure to provide written grounds of arrest, but such grounds should not be allowed to affect the course of justice, especially in serious criminal matters. The bench observed that the procedural lapse could not outweigh the severity of the offence committed.
• Public Interest and Justice for Victims: Justice Dangre expressed concern about the rights of victims, stating that in cases involving serious offences, such as the present case, the rights of the victim should also be considered when making legal decisions. The judge rhetorically asked, “What about the victim’s fundamental rights?” highlighting the need to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim.
• Test Case for Future Precedents: During the hearing, Justice Dangre also suggested that the case could serve as a “test case” to examine whether the seriousness of the offence should be considered when evaluating whether an accused person should be released based on technicalities. The bench emphasized that a case involving serious harm to the victim, such as being dragged by a car, could not be dismissed merely due to a procedural flaw in the arrest process.
• Dismissal of Petitions: In light of the serious nature of the offence and the potential consequences of releasing the accused, the High Court dismissed the petitions. The bench ruled that the procedural failure to provide written grounds of arrest was not significant enough to override the gravity of the offence and the public interest in ensuring that the investigation proceeds without hindrance.