Supreme Court Calls Accident Accused Rich Brat, Refuses Bail
Linus tackles things head-on. He takes sides in his analysis and it fits excellently with our editorial policy. No 'maybe's' and 'allegedly' for him, only things in black and white.
View all posts by this Author
By Linus Garg
First publised on 2021-04-20 06:57:51
About the Author
Linus tackles things head-on. He takes sides in his analysis and it fits excellently with our editorial policy. No 'maybe's' and 'allegedly' for him, only things in black and white.
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to Raghib Parwez, son of Kolkata's biryani baron (owner of food chain Arsalan) Akhtar Parwez, as the court felt that son's of the rich driving fancy cars at high speed and getting involved in accidents that kill people cannot seek relief.
In the instant case, Raghib Parwez was speeding along in a Jaguar F-Pace in the middle of the night when he hit a Mercedes which spun out of control and hit bystanders standing there. Two of them were killed and one was seriously injured. Raghib fled from the spot and immediately left the country. His family tried to show that he was not driving the car. He returned to India to face trail only after the police arrested his brother.
In the Supreme Court, the lawyers representing Parwez said that Raghib was suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder. They also argued that since he had returned to India to face trial, was cooperating with the investigators, was not intimidating witnesses and was already incarcerated at home on interim bail for one year, he should be granted bail. They also argued that there was no point in sending him to jail since the second wave of Covid-19 was raging in the country.
But the apex court did not buy their arguments. It said that the lower court had found no evidence of the accused suffering from any mental disorder. It also said that if it is true that he was mentally unsound "who allowed him to drive the Jaguar at such high speed?" The court observed that in "the parents in such cases need to be sent behind bars".
The Supreme Court has seldom displayed concern for such accused. In the instant case, the court categorically said that "his conduct does not warrant any relief". Although the defence lawyers argued that the trial is likely to drag on for many months and sending the accused to jail at this juncture "would be punitive in nature and contrary to the petitioner's fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India", the court said it was "not able to persuade ourselves to agree with you on the relief you have sought".
