E-Paper
Court rejects anticipatory bail of Navi Mumbai IT professional in Toit valet death case
The accused man rammed his car into the valet counter of Toit restaurant in Kalyaninagar, killing a 30-year-old staff on November 30 last year
A Pune sessions court on Saturday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Pratap Daingade, 49, an IT professional from Nerul in Navi Mumbai, accused of ramming his car into the valet counter of Toit restaurant in Kalyaninagar, killing a 30-year-old staff on November 30 last year. The court order was uploaded on the court’s website on Monday.
The order was passed by additional sessions judge PR Choudhary, who held that prima facie material showed Daingade was intoxicated and had knowledge that he was unfit to drive, attracting provisions of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Daingade is accused of driving his Volkswagen into the valet area of the popular restaurant after its staff allegedly refused to serve him more alcohol. The deceased, identified as Satyendra Mandal, sustained grievous injuries in the impact and later succumbed to them.
Rejecting the plea, the judge noted that the first information report (FIR) clearly indicated that Daingade was under the influence of alcohol and was “heavily drunk” at the time of the incident.
“The FIR indicates that Daingade was under the influence of liquor and was heavily drunk. He was told that he was not able to drive the vehicle. Therefore, he had knowledge that he was not in a position to drive, yet he drove the vehicle and caused the death of the deceased,” the court observed.
The judge noted that since the investigation was still underway, it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred at around 2 pm, when Daingade arrived at Toit and consumed beer. The informant, a manager at the restaurant, stated that Daingade was visibly intoxicated and was walking between tables, disturbing other customers.
The staff allegedly asked him to stop drinking and leave the premises, following which an associate escorted him out. The manager also informed Daingade that he was unfit to drive and offered to arrange a driver or a cab to take him home.
However, Daingade allegedly ignored the advice, got into his car, and drove at high speed before suddenly accelerating and crashing into the valet counter and gravely injuring Mandal.
Appearing through counsel, Daingade denied the allegations and claimed he had been falsely implicated. The defence argued that the case did not attract Section 105 of the BNS, but fell under Section 106, which deals with causing death by negligence.
The defence contended that Daingade was not under the influence of alcohol, was a well-reputed individual with deep roots in society, and that the investigation was technically complete. On these grounds, anticipatory bail was sought.
The investigating officer (IO), assistant public prosecutor (APP), and the advocate representing the informant opposed the plea, citing the seriousness of the offence and Daingade’s direct involvement.
They relied on recent Bombay High Court rulings, including Mihir Shah vs State of Maharashtra (Bail Application No. 3589 of 2025), where bail under BNS Section 106 was rejected on the ground that the offence carried a punishment of up to 10 years and was grave in nature.
The prosecution also cited Ritu vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 375 of 2024), in which the high court reiterated that offences involving loss of life due to reckless conduct must be treated seriously.
Accepting the prosecution’s submissions, the sessions court rejected Daingade’s anticipatory bail application.
