MUMBAI: The wife of 33-year-old Dhrumil Patel, who died after a February 5 crash near Somaiya College in Vidyavihar, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the father of a 17-year-old accused of driving a car without a licence and hitting the couple’s scooter.
The plea challenges the March 4 sessions court order which granted bail to the boy’s father, the owner of the vehicle, contending that the court ignored material suggesting his knowledge of and role in facilitating the offence. The material included stunt videos on social media reviewed by investigators.
Filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita through advocate Ruben Mascarenhas, the application argues that prior instances of the minor’s reckless driving and his access to the vehicle indicate the father’s awareness, attracting liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The petition also mentions an alleged ₹40 lakh “blood money” offer made to the victim to withdraw the complaint and flags concerns over possible witness influence and evidence tampering.
Fatal crash, charges escalated
According to the FIR registered at Tilak Nagar police station, the minor allegedly hit the scooter around 11.15pm on February 5, critically injuring both victims. Patel died on February 15, after which police added culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with rash and negligent driving provisions and offences under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The father was arrested on February 10 under Section 199A, which holds a guardian liable for offences committed by a minor driver.
Bail split between courts
A Vikhroli magistrate rejected the father’s bail on February 23, citing prima facie evidence of his knowledge of the minor’s driving. However, on March 4, the sessions court granted him bail, holding that there was insufficient material to show he knew the car had been taken, relying inter alia on a watchman’s statement. The order imposed standard conditions, including periodic police attendance and a bar on entering the locality for a limited period.
Plea cites knowledge, facilitation and deleted posts
Challenging this, the widow argues that the sessions court misread the watchman’s statement, which she says reflects a pattern of the minor accessing car keys with tacit approval.
The plea also cites screenshots from the minor’s Instagram account allegedly showing posts of repeated reckless driving and stunts using the same vehicle. The posts were later deleted, suggesting possible evidence tampering. It argues the father, being active on social media, was aware of such conduct.
The plea also alleges a ₹40 lakh offer, made soon after the incident to the victim which is described as an attempt to influence witnesses. The plea says that the offer, along with deletion of online content, displays a real risk of interference if the accused remains on bail.
It also notes that the investigation was still ongoing when bail was granted and that key statements were yet to be recorded, calling the conditions imposed “illusory”. It also states that there was no change in circumstances from the magistrate’s rejection to justify a contrary view by the sessions court.
HC to examine key issues
The High Court will examine whether the sessions court ignored material evidence, including the scope of guardian liability under Section 199A, the relevance of prior conduct and social media evidence at the bail stage, and the impact of alleged post-offence conduct on the risk of interference.
The High Court will also examine whether the sessions court’s grant of bail can stand in the face of material on record and allegations of interference with the investigation.