The Bombay High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Mumbai Police for what it described as “shocking negligence” in the investigation of a 2022 hit-and-run case that claimed the life of a 24-year-old man. The division bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad expressed deep dissatisfaction with the manner in which officers had handled the case, characterising their conduct as grossly callous, unacceptable, and deserving of strong condemnation.
As part of its ruling, the court ordered a departmental inquiry against Police Sub-Inspector Dnyadev Pawar of Bangur Nagar police station, pointing to a “clear dereliction of duty.” The judges noted that the officer had failed to carry out even the most basic procedural steps, such as seizing the victim’s scooter, which could have been a crucial piece of evidence. The bench remarked that the indifference and lack of urgency displayed by the officers over the years fell far below the standards expected of the police and undermined public trust.
The case came before the High Court on a petition filed by Babita Pawan Jha, the mother of the deceased. Her son lost his life in August 2022 in Malad when his two-wheeler was struck by an unidentified truck near Raunak Masjid. At the time, Babita Jha was riding on another scooter just behind her son and witnessed the accident unfold. However, due to the trauma of the moment, she was unable to capture the truck’s registration number. Although an FIR was promptly registered, she alleged that the police displayed persistent inaction and made no meaningful progress for nearly three years.
The breakthrough in the case came only after the High Court’s intervention, when investigative methods such as e-challan tracking and monitoring vehicle entries into the city were finally employed. These steps led to the identification of the truck and its driver, culminating in a chargesheet being filed on August 7, 2025. State representative APP Gauri Rao confirmed this development to the bench.
The judges, however, were scathing in their response to the delay, stressing that these were simple and routine investigative steps that should have been taken immediately after the incident, rather than years later. “If these steps were indeed effective, we fail to understand why they were not taken by the earlier investigating officers. Their conduct has been nothing short of shocking and deserves condemnation,” the court observed.
While disposing of the petition, the bench directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial within a year. Additionally, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to pursue compensation, ensuring that the family of the victim could seek justice not only through criminal accountability but also through civil remedies.
