Mumbai: A sessions court that denied bail to a 44-year-old fitness trainer and entrepreneur accused of killing an eight-year-old boy in Bandra with her car last month held that when a person driving a vehicle on a busy road tries to use a phone, he/she is inviting trouble for sure.“For a person, who is driving a sophisticated vehicle like Innova Crysta and using a cellphone, it is always difficult to control the vehicle in case of emergency,” said special judge A D Kshirsagar. The judge held that considering this situation, it is not possible to conclude at this stage that an offence under BNS Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) is not applicable. “When the accused drove the car and tried to use the cellphone, knowledge of the consequences of such an act can be attributed to her that by such driving, she could cause an accident which may result in the death of a person.”Observing that there is considerable traffic “almost everywhere” in Mumbai, the judge said a “momentary lapse in concentration or negligence for a split second can cause accidents”.The bail plea of the accused, Megha Rawal, was rejected on Monday and the detailed order was made available the next day.The court noted that two eyewitnesses said Rawal was talking on the phone while driving. It said she lived in the same locality and would have been aware of traffic and the movement of children near a garden where she allegedly ran over the boy, Ansh Gupta.The court rejected the defence’s claim about a blind turn near the accident spot, noting that a rough sketch map did not show such a turn. “The road is fairly straight near the spot of incident on both sides,” it said. The judge said had the child already crossed the road and the vehicle only moved thereafter, “there was no reason for the accident”.The court noted that call logs showed several missed calls between 2.22pm and 2.31pm and outgoing calls at 2.35pm and 2.36pm. Acknowledging that there was no call exactly at 2.15pm—the time of accident mentioned in the FIR—the court observed, “There could be a difference of 5-10 minutes easily in such a description and the time gap between incoming calls and time of accident mentioned in the FIR is of 7 minutes only.”The court also took note of a pen drive containing a video in which an eyewitness allegedly complained about efforts to tamper with witnesses, and the complainant’s application to Bandra police seeking security.Holding that the investigation was at a preliminary stage, it said, “Considering the nature of the allegation and requirements of the investigation, this is not a proper case to grant bail to the accused.”
