Additional Sessions Judge Anil D. Salunkhe observed that the vehicle, given its alleged role in the incident, functioned as a “weapon” and therefore constituted crucial evidence in the case. The Court further held that there existed a clear possibility of tampering if the vehicle were returned to the accused, thereby undermining the integrity of the investigation.
The Court noted that considering the manner in which the alleged incident occurred and its consequences, the use of the vehicle was akin to that of a weapon that resulted in the unfortunate death of Kaveri. The judge stated that these circumstances necessitated invocation of relevant provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the applicant-accused. It further emphasized that the possibility of reuse, misuse, or destruction of material evidence linked to the vehicle could not be ruled out.
The case originates from a July 7, 2024 incident in Worli, where complainant Pradeep Nakhva and his wife Kaveri were allegedly struck by a BMW driven by Shah while they were travelling on a scooter. Kaveri succumbed to her injuries, while Pradeep Nakhva sustained injuries.
Following the incident, a First Information Report was registered invoking provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Motor Vehicles Act, and relevant rules. The BMW was subsequently traced, seized by police, and multiple accused persons, including Shah, were arrested in connection with the case.
Shah had approached the Court seeking release of the vehicle, stating that he had purchased the BMW and required it for personal and family use.
However, the prosecution strongly opposed the plea, terming the matter a serious criminal incident. It argued that the speed and manner in which the vehicle was driven, along with the resulting fatal outcome, elevated its significance beyond that of a routine accident case. The prosecution also highlighted the risk that the accused might alter or destroy the vehicle, which remains a key piece of evidence.
After considering the submissions of both sides, the Court concluded that in view of the gravity of the allegations and the evidentiary value of the vehicle, the relief sought by Shah could not be granted.
Advocate Nitin Sejpal appeared on behalf of the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor Ashwini Rayakar represented the State.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on preserving material evidence in serious road fatality cases, particularly where the vehicle itself is central to establishing the sequence of events and liability.
About The Author
Comment List