Janhavi Gadkar, the Reliance Industries lawyer who allegedly killed two while driving drunk, has had her bail refused by magistrate Richa Khedkar, after senior counsel Amit Desai, representing Gadkar, argued yesterday that “significant progress” had been made in the case and keeping her in jail on bail was not necessary.
Desai had also represented Bollywood superstar Salman Khan in his Bombay high court bail after having been convicted of drunk-drive killing.
Public prosecutor Prahlad Mahajan had argued yesterday that Gadkar could tamper with evidence because she lived near to witnesses, some of whose statements were still being recorded.
Mumbai Audi crash: Kurla Court rejects bail plea of lawyer Jahnvi Gadkar, accused of mowing down two people, under influence of alcohol.
The lawyer representing one of the victim’s families, Niteen Pradhan, argued yesterday according to the Hindustan Times that this was not an ordinary case, saying: “The conscience of the general public is violated and general public says that something needs to be done.” Her lawyers had previously wanted to argue for bail on medical grounds.
The case had unleashed a torrent of vitriol in the media and online against Gadkar, including journalist Barkha Dutt calling her a “poor little rich girl” on Twitter, adding that “all your money wont buy you the grit& grace of their families. Drink to that.”
Salman Khan was pronounced guilty by a trial court has in May, immediately secured bail pending his appeal in the Bombay high court 13 years after his drink driving accident that killed one.
Correction: Khan has spent at least several days in police custody after the hit-and-run in 2002. We regret the error.
Comments
Whats up Kian huh!!1
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/mumbai-hit-and-run-case-janhavi-gadkar-audi-q3-crash-kurla-court-marine-drive/1/447299.html
It looks to me from the report below that there is no "law on bail", in practice Judges do whatever they want.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-bail-for-Janhavi-Gadkar-in-drunk-driving-case/articleshow/47828748.cms
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/mumbai-hit-and-run-case-janhavi-gadkar-audi-q3-crash-kurla-court-marine-drive/1/447299.html
It looks to me from the report below that there is no "law on bail", in practice Judges do whatever they want.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-bail-for-Janhavi-Gadkar-in-drunk-driving-case/articleshow/47828748.cms[/quote]
1. Gadkar may even claim that she met with the PM. Are you saying it should be published in newspapers?
Will Reliance be very happy to see their executive's name in all the news for attending a whisky party? I am sure reliance would have taken enough care to ensure that reliance CFOs name does not flash in the breaking news everyday.
2. If there were any consistent law on bail, Salman wouldn't have got bail easily after the crime, while gadkar is languishing in custody for 3 weeks already. In what ways is gadkar more likely/capable than our megastar in tampering with the evidence and/or influencing witnesses?
Second that.
She killed two people. What do you want us to believe that somebody willcome forward at the later stage to take the blame on him and till then she has allegedly killed those 2.
I was under the impression that as soon as there is a criminal case likely, it is advisable to report that all facts are alleged, until admitted in court by the accused.
After all, you have no idea what her plea will be in court or what she or any other accused will choose to contest or not.
Just because the police and media and 1000 people have said X happened, if there's a likelihood of a criminal trial, the media could prejudice the case by taking a judgment call on whether X is sufficiently proved / admitted, etc.
That's why I thought a blanket rule for the use of 'allegedly' exists, and is an important symbolic reminder of the role and responsibility of the Fourth Estate despite its power.
There are dozens of elements and 'facts' to any crime such as culpable homicide, including her state of mind, her level of drunkenness, the exact course of events of the accident, as well as the question of causation - i.e., whether she was in fact legally responsible for their deaths.
If media can decide authoritatively on one of these, what's to stop it from deciding on the other facts?
Just found out about this - Nothing happened eventually in the Roop Kanwar murder disguised as sati case - Roop Kanwar's 'sati' case all 45 charged with murder & all 11 charged with glorification were acquitted - So who killed Roop Kanwar, no one? A living 18 year old woman was set on fire in front of a crowd and nobody murdered her according to our courts of law.
2004 Frontline report on how nothing happened in Roop Kanwar sati case - http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2105/stories/20040312002504600.htm