New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to entertain the bail plea of Mihir Shah, the son of a former Shiv Sena leader, in the 2024 Mumbai BMW hit-and-run case, saying “these boys need to be taught a lesson”.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih took into account that the accused belonged to an affluent family and his father was associated with the Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde-led faction of the Shiv Sena.
“He parks his Mercedes in the shed, takes out his BMW and crashes it and goes absconding. Let him be inside for some time. These boys need to be taught a lesson,” the bench observed on Friday while refusing to entertain the bail plea.
Senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Shah, said the high court allowed him to seek bail after the testimony of key witnesses was recorded in the case. However, sensing the mood of the court, she sought permission to withdraw the plea, which was allowed.
Shah (24) was arrested on July 9 last year, two days after he allegedly rammed his BMW car into a twowheeler in Mumbai’s Worli area, killing Kaveri Nakhwa (45) and leaving her husband, Pradeep Nakhwa, injured.
The accused allegedly sped off towards the Bandra-Worli Sea Link after the accident, even as the woman remained on the bonnet of the car and then got entangled in its wheels for a distance of more than 1.5 kilometres.
Shah’s driver, Rajrishi Bidawat, who was also present in the car at the time of the accident, was arrested on the day of the alleged accident. Both are in judicial custody.
Shah has challenged the November 21 order of the Bombay High Court that denied him bail in the case after noting that he was heavily inebriated and failed to stop the car even after hitting a scooter and dragging the victim under his vehicle.
The high court had said in the order that the conduct of the accused at the time of the alleged offence and afterwards does not inspire confidence in the court to grant him bail. It had said that Shah had accidentally crashed into the scooter but sped away at high speed, dragging the victim underneath the car.
His further actions indicate a clear intent to escape the consequences and evade arrest, the high court had noted, adding that his exchanging seats with his driver, calling his father and leaving the scene of offence indicate the predilection to tamper with evidence and/or intimidate witnesses.
