Mumbai sessions court judge Sanjay V Patil granted bail to Janhavi Gadkar today with Rs 30,000 surety, after the Reliance Industries in-house and former Talwar Thakore Associates corporate lawyer allegedly killed two when driving drunk nearly two months ago, reported Mid-day and others.
Gadkar’s lawyer, senior advocate Amit Desai, had argued yesterday that the fact of her being a lawyer could not be used against her to claim that she would tamper with evidence. “Is being an advocate a ground for refusing bail? Many qualified people land in untoward situations. All that they keep saying that she is an advocate. She is a Bombay girl who comes from a humble family. Because of her capabilities and competence she has achieved heights in the legal fraternity. This cannot be used against her,” he said, reported the Indian Express.
The prosecution tried to have her bail extended arguing it would send a “wrong signal” to society.
The accident, following shortly after Salman Khan’s prompt bail in the Bombay high court obtained by Desai the same day of Khan’s trial court conviction, provoked an immediate backlash of outrage against Gadkar in traditional, online and social media, with news anchor Barkha Dutt tweeting at the time: “Poor Little Rich Girl. You killed two people. All your money wont buy you the grit& grace of their families. Drink to that.”
Comments
you are right (in the case of murder), it is not required.
Given that the prosecution made a point that the accused is a habitual offender, I would expect additional caution to be exercised in the bail statement.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Drunk-driving-accused-Janhavi-Gadkar-loses-her-licence/articleshow/48991502.cms
I don't see why RTO took such a long time to even cancel her licence. Technically she was allowed to drive after she got bail until this decision to cancel her license.
It's pretty difficult to make the CFO liable - Gadkar is an adult, allowed to drink, and there is no indication the CFO forced her to consume. I would look at liability for the hotel, which kept serving her past the point of safety. They have deep pockets and a colorable duty. The CFO is simply the kind of "man" who signs off on Reliance financial reports and lets a clearly impaired woman get behind the wheel of a car. Res ipsa loquitur.
Given that Gadkar went from office to the bar (possibly for a offsite client meeting), and then to home, it could fall under the 'travel to/from work' category.
I am aware that no such provision exists in India, but just wanted opinions.
Secondly, was the client entertainment part of her chartered duties?
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/gadkar-moves-court-against-culpable-homicide-charge-115082601515_1.html
Corporate lawyer Janhavi Gadkar, who was arrested for mowing down 2 people here allegedly under the influence of alcohol, has moved a suburban Kurla Magistrate court challenging the applicability of the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against her.
In her plea, she said that her case should not be transferred to the sessions court for trial.
She has argued that charge of section 304 II of Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) is not applicable against her and the police have not made any case for applying the charge.
Gadkar, 35, has informed the court that she did not have any intention to kill anybody nor she knew that this accident would happen.
The court is likely to hear the application tomorrow.
In the wee hours of June 10, an high-end car driven by Gadkar had rammed a taxi, killing two persons including the taxi driver on the Eastern Freeway here.
The deceased were identified as Mohammed Abdul Sayyad (55) and Mohammed Salim Sabuwala (50).
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Drunk-driving-accused-Janhavi-Gadkar-loses-her-licence/articleshow/48991502.cms