A metropolitan magistrate deferred to Wednesday the bail plea of 35-year-old high court advocate Janhavi Ajit Gadkar, arrested for a drink driving crash that killed two people in Mumbai last Tuesday, after her lawyer claimed she needed urgent medical attention.
In the early hours of June 9, Gadkar, driving her Audi Q3 on the wrong side of the Eastern Freeway while drunk, crashed into a taxi, killing two people and injuring four.
On Monday, Gadkar’s lawyer moved an application seeking urgent medical intervention, saying his client was in severe pain. He asked that she be taken to JJ Hospital or any other government hospital for treatment. The court asked for a report on her health.
The court also allowed an intervention application filed by Sadia Sabuwala, daughter of businessman Salim Sabuwala, one of the two men who died in the accident. This means that when the court hears Gadkar’s bail plea on Wednesday, the prosecution will be assisted by Sabuwala’s lawyer. Gadkar’s lawyer objected to this, saying the complainant does not have any say at this stage and cannot be allowed to argue. Nonetheless, the court allowed Sabuwala’s lawyer to assist the prosecution.
The RCF police, however, opposed Gadkar’s bail application on the grounds that her offence was of a serious nature and responsible for the death of two people. Gadkar’s lawyer had objected to the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but the police said that had enough evidence to prove that the charge applied.
Police officials also said that because the charge of culpable homicide not amounting murder can be only tried by a sessions court, the magistrate court did not have the power to give Gadkar bail.
The police added that while they had recorded the statements of various witnesses and eyewitnesses, their investigation was still not complete. They contested that if Gadkar was released on bail, she could influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.
Sadia’s lawyer Subadha Khot said, “We are the aggrieved party and have suffered a lot. We have pleaded in the application that the investigation is still incomplete, and that we should get a hearing before the order is passed.”