sns 38-wp-09-2020.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9 OF 2020 Govind Zarnappa Kavale ] Age: 68 years, Occ.: Retired ] Residing at: New Ashok Nagar, ] Near Hanuman Temple, Vasinaka, ] Mahul Road, Chembur, ] Mumbai 400 074 ] … Petitioner V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra ] Through Senior Inspector of Police ] RCF Police Station, Mumbai. ] 2. The Commissioner of Police, ] Mumbai, Crawford Market, Mumbai. ] 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police ] Zone VI, Chembur, Mumbai ] …Respondents ______________________________________ Mr. Sandesh More a/w Mr. Om Gandhi, Mr. Hitendra Gandhi for the Petitioner. Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Somnath Avhad, P.S.I., RCF Police Station, Chembur, Mumbai. _____________________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 4th August, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 20th August, 2026. Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :- 1) By this Writ Petition the Petitioner seeks the transfer of investigation of C.R. No.159 of 2014 from RCF Police Station to CBI, CID, or another adjacent Police Station under the supervision of a superior Authority. 1/6 SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Date: 2026.08.20 15:10:48 +0530 sns 38-wp-09-2020.doc 2) The Petitioner is the father of Dhanraj Kavale who expired on 14th June 2014 (Dhanraj/the deceased) in a motorcycle accident. 3) Mr. Sandesh More, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the death of Dhanraj in a motorcycle accident raises suspicion because, according to the Petitioner, Dhanraj disliked driving motorcycles and had accordingly not obtained a driving licence. The learned Advocate further submits that Dhanraj had recently married in 2013. He was working in Dubai and had only on 2nd June 2014, permanently relocated to India after winding up his affairs there. 4) On 14th June 2014, Dhanraj went with his friend, Mr. Shravankumar Dhondiba Kharatmol (Shravankumar) for a pleasure ride since he met him after a long time. At approximately 12:00 noon, Dhanraj’s married sister, Sumitra, received a call informing her of the Dhanraj’s accident and she in turn informed the Petitioner. By the time the Petitioner, who was at Vasinaka, reached the Inlaks hospital, the doctors had declared him dead to the casualty. 5) The learned Advocate contends that Shravankumar’s admission to the ICU shortly after Dhanraj’s admission to the hospital is suspicious. Moreover, Shravankumar sustained only minor injuries and was discharged within four days. The learned Advocate further submits that even after discharge, Shravankumar declined to discuss the accident with the family. Additionally, instead of contacting the Petitioner or the family, 2/6 sns 38-wp-09-2020.doc Shravankumar contacted his two brothers, Shivaji Kharatmol and Gopal Mhavarkar. 6) The learned Advocate submits that Shravankumar’s statement that, after refueling at the Vasinaka Petrol pump, they drove to BPT road, with Dhanraj driving and Shravankumar riding as a pillion passenger is implausible. 7) Moreover, the Police’s failure to verify Shravankumar’s statement by examining the CCTV footage from Vasinaka petrol pump suggests, according to the learned Advocate, an attempt to shield Shravankumar. The learned Advocate contends that the CCTV footage was crucial evidence that could have corroborated or refuted Shravankumar’s account. It is further submitted that, notwithstanding a written complaint lodged with Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Chembur on 18th July 2014, the Petitioner was not even called for an inquiry. 8) In these circumstances, the Police authorities filing an ‘A- Summary Report’ and closing the case raises suspicion regarding the death of Petitioner’s son, Dhanraj. 9) Mr. Gavand learned APP for the State submitted that, it was an unfortunate accidental death of Dhanraj. He relied upon the Affidavit filed by the Senior Police Inspector attached to the Rabodi Traffic Division in support of his contention. 10) We heard Mr. More, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and 3/6 sns 38-wp-09-2020.doc Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the State and perused the entire record. 11) Having examined the entire record, we find this to be an unfortunate case of accidental death. While it is understandable for the Petitioner, as the father of the deceased, to harbour suspicions regarding the circumstances of his son’s death in a motorcycle accident, the evidence does not support foul play. It must be noted that Dhanraj was a 30-year-old adult, not a child attempting to drive a motorcycle for the first time. We find nothing inherently suspicious in Shravankumar’s account. His narrative, that Dhanraj requested him to drive the motorcycle, cannot be dismissed merely only on the Petitioner’s assertion that Dhanraj did not have a motorcycle licence and disliked driving. We find no mens rea in this case. It is undisputed that Shravankumar rode as a pillion passenger when the accident occurred. Furthermore, if Dhanraj did not know how to drive a motorcycle then, they would likely have met with an accident in close proximity to the petrol pump and not after a significant distance. It is difficult to believe that Shravankumar would have risked his life riding pillion to an inexperienced driver. 12) The contention that Shravankumar got admitted to the ICU after admitting Dhanraj to Inlaks Hospital does not give rise to any suspicion about any malafide intent, rather it shows concern for Dhanraj. One cannot ignore that Shravankumar though himself injured rushed Dhanraj from Saibaba Hospital to the Inlaks Hospital on Doctor’s advice. 4/6 sns 38-wp-09-2020.doc 13) In our view, the fact that Shravankumar rushed Dhanraj from Saibaba Hospital to the Inlaks Hospital itself shows an attempt to save Dhanraj’s life rather than to endanger it. The investigation also revealed that, there was no dispute or animosity between Dhanraj or his family and Shravankumar. Nor did the death of Dhanraj benefit Shravankumar in any manner. Therefore, no motive could be attributed to Shravankumar who rode pillion to the deceased at the time of the accident. 14) Having carefully examined the Affidavit in Reply, it is evident that the Authorities have investigated the case satisfactorily. The mere fact that the Police did not verify the CCTV footage at the Petrol pump, does not in itself, render the investigation deficient or invalid. The personal visit of the senior inspector to the spot of the incident, was pertinent. Since he found no CCTV camera installed in the proximity of the accident, there was no reference in the panchnama. He accordingly has rightly concluded that, the death of Dhanraj in a motorcycle accident was accidental and the allegations by the Petitioner are baseless and unfounded. 15) An examination of the post-mortem report as well as the inquest panchnama reveal that Dhanraj expired as a result of head injury and traumatic shock. Considering the case in its entirety, we find no reason to disbelieve that, the investigation or draw a conclusion that it was insufficiently carried out or the Police have attempted to shield Shravankumar as sought to be alleged. 5/6 sns 38-wp-09-2020.doc 16) We therefore conclude that, this is yet another case of an unfortunate ‘accidental death’ and nothing else. We accordingly find no justifiable reason to transfer the investigation to any other Police Station or a superior Authority. 17) In view of the aforesaid, the Petition is dismissed. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 6/6