Drink-driving case: Huge crowd turns up to see Janhavi Gadkar at Kurla court

The normally quiet Kurla magistrate court was thronged by journalists, lawyers and passers-by on Friday morning, when news that Janhavi Gadkar, the 35-year-old lawyer at the centre of the city’s latest drink driving case, was to be produced there.

The normally quiet Kurla magistrate court was thronged by journalists, lawyers and passers-by on Friday morning, when news that Janhavi Gadkar, the 35-year-old lawyer at the centre of the city’s latest drink driving case, was to be produced there.

Janhavi-Gadkar-the-drunk-lawyer-who-rammed-her-Audi-into-the-taxi-late-on-Monday-night-was-produced-at-a-Mumbai-court-Satish-Bate-HT-photo

A crowd began to gather at 11.30 am, with everyone anticipating that Gadkar would be produced in court around noon. Photographers and onlookers rushed to every police vehicle that entered the court premises, believing it to be from RCF police station, which is investigating the case. Meanwhile, Gadkar’s mother was seen discussing the case with her lawyers, worry etched on her face.

The family of Salim Sabuwala, one of victims, arrived at the court around 1pm and were surrounded at once. When they entered the court, Salim’s 16-year-old son Noman was briefed by the public prosecutor. He said before the hearing, “I just hope she does not get bail. She has destroyed two families and still has an arrogant attitude. She did not even come to help when she rammed her car into our taxi. She deserves to be behind bars.”

Salim’s brother Hanif Sabuwala said Salim’s wife, Hafeeza, who is recovering in hospital, was informed of his death on Thursday evening. He added that the younger of Salim’s two daughters was hit hardest by her father’s death.

When Gadkar was produced in court after a five-hour wait, her face was covered with a dupatta. Cordoned off by the police, she entered the courtroom through a crowd of journalists. In no time, the courtroom was packed.

Gadkar’s mother, who sat alone on a bench in courtroom number 52, was unable to hear the court’s decision to remand her daughter in judicial custody because of the sheer number of people present. Eventually, her lawyer told her what had been said.