Worli hit‑and‑run: Mumbai court frames charges against accused for culpable homicide, evidence tampering

A Mumbai sessions court on June 10 framed criminal charges against three accused in the 2024 Worli BMW hit‑and‑run case, including 25-year-old Mihir Shah, his father Rajesh Shah and a driver Rajrushi Rajendrasingh Bidawat [State of Maharashtra v. Mihir Shah & Ors.].

Additional Sessions Judge Anil D Salunkhe rejected a plea to discharge Rajesh Shah and held that there was prima facie material to proceed against all three accused.

The court found sufficient material to frame the charge of causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, punishable under Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), against Rajesh Shah.

Charges were framed against Mihir Shah and co‑accused driver Rajrushi Rajendrasingh Bidawat for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 105 BNS), rash driving (Section 281), negligent act causing grievous hurt (Section 125(b)), mischief (Section 324(4)) and disappearance of evidence (Section 238), as well as offences under the Motor Vehicles Act and allied rules.

The case concerns a July 7, 2024 incident in Worli. Mihir Shah is alleged to have rashly driven his BMW, which struck a scooter carrying Pradeep Nakhwa and his wife, Kaveri. Kaveri died, while Nakhwa sustained injuries.

An FIR was registered under provisions of the BNS, the Motor Vehicles Act and related rules. The BMW was later traced and seized, and multiple accused, including Shah, were arrested. 

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Sewree magistrate.

The case was then committed to the sessions court since the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 BNS is triable exclusively by a sessions court.

The defence sought the discharge of Rajesh Shah, arguing that he had cooperated with the police and had not done anything to destroy evidence. 

The prosecution opposed the plea and alleged that Rajesh, despite knowing that Mihir was drunk and that a serious offence had occurred, helped him evade arrest and medical examination and acted to cause disappearance of evidence.

The defence had also argued that the case against Mihir and Bidawat at best attracted the second part of Section 105 of BNS which deals with acts down with knowledge that it may cause death, but not any intention to cause death.

The court relied on CCTV footage, witness statements and the manner in which the car was allegedly driven to conclude that there was “grave suspicion” of intention or knowledge to cause death, which was sufficient to invoke the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against Mihir and Bidawat. 

The court also found enough material to frame a charge against Rajesh Shah under Section 238 BNS for allegedly causing the disappearance of evidence to screen the offender.

Advocate Nitin Sejpal appeared for all the accused. Additional public prosecutor Ashwini Rayakar appeared for State.

[Read order]