Mumbai BEST bus accident: Accused driver seeks bail, blames congested road; says no criminal intent
Mumbai (PTI): The BEST bus driver involved in an accident in which four people were killed last month has sought bail claiming the road was crowded and encroached upon by hawkers, causing him to lose control of the vehicle.
The driver, in his plea filed before the sessions court, asserted he did not cause the accident intentionally and has not committed any crime in the past.
The Olectra Greentech-make electric bus of Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) undertaking crashed into pedestrians near Bhandup railway station on the night of December 29, killing four people and injuring 10 others.
Driver Santosh Sawant (52) was later arrested by Bhandup police and is currently in judicial custody. He was held under relevant sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Motor Vehicles Act for negligent driving.
Sawant claimed he is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to the unfortunate nature of the incident.
Narrating the circumstances of the accident, he said the road was narrow, crowded, and encroached upon by hawkers.
Sawant claimed he attempted to save a rickshaw as well as pedestrians who suddenly appeared, causing him to lose control of the bus.
There was no criminal intent, he said in his plea, which will be next heard on January 13.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Stray dogs case: SC refuses to go into allegation of harassment of women dog feeders
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law-and-order issue and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.
Hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the apex court also refused to go into the claims about certain derogatory remarks being made about women in the issue.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria observed that some of the arguments made before it were "far from reality" and there were a number of videos of stray dogs attacking children and the elderly.
The top court was hearing arguments on pleas, including the ones filed by dog lovers, seeking modification of its earlier orders and those for stringent compliance with the directives.
Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted the plight of women dog feeders and caregivers and said anti-feeder vigilantes have assumed the role of enforcing the apex court's order passed earlier in the matter. "Under the garb of this, they are harassing women, they are molesting women, and they are beating women," she said.
Justice Nath observed, "Lodge an FIR against them. Who stops you?"
The bench said that if anyone was harassing or molesting women, it was a crime, and the aggrieved person could set the criminal law in motion by lodging an FIR.
When Pavani referred to an incident where a dog feeder was attacked in her house, the bench said, "All this is a criminal offence. You lodge an FIR against that".
"We can't take up these individual cases where something is going wrong somewhere. This court is not going to monitor that. That is a law-and-order problem," Justice Nath observed.
Pavani said that in Haryana, certain societies hired bouncers to remove dog feeders, and a woman was slapped in Ghaziabad, but no FIR was lodged.
"We are not going to accept this. If a criminal offence is committed, an FIR will be registered. There are procedures available to you, remedies available, and how to get it registered," the bench said.
The senior advocate flagged the issue of unregulated breeding and exotic imports.
"Again, this has nothing to do with the stray dogs issue. There are remedies in the Act and the rules. Don't make this a platform for other objects. You address us on the issues which we are dealing with in this matter," the bench said.
It said the import of the top court's order was very clear, and it was restricted to stray dogs only. "Tomorrow, you will say why Cheetahs have been imported to Kuno (national park). Why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much. Sorry," Justice Mehta said.
When Pavani argued that derogatory remarks were being made regarding women in the matter, the bench said, "How is that relevant in this context?"
"Even though we are being criticised in very derogatory language, we don't react," Justice Nath said, adding that one can take action on this issue.
"We have not given any kind of licence to people to talk like this. If they are talking like this, you take action against them," the bench said.
The bench also heard submissions of other lawyers, including senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Shadan Farasat, in the matter.
When one of the lawyers referred to a dog at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the bench asked whether it was taken even to the operation theatre.
"Any dog on the street is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital, do you understand what disastrous consequences would befall?" the bench posed. "Don't try to glorify that there was a dog at AIIMS".
Singhvi said this was now not entirely a matter about dogs or humans, and it was about certain constitutional principles.
At the fag end of the hearing, a lawyer said he has put up videos if the court would like to see them. "There are 'n' number of videos on YouTube of dogs attacking children, dogs attacking old people," the bench observed.
The hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and would continue on January 13.
While hearing arguments on Thursday, the bench said it had not directed the removal of every dog from the streets, and the directive was to treat stray canines according to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
It had earlier flagged the non-compliances of rules and directions by civic bodies and said people were dying not only due to dog bites alone in the country but also because of accidents caused by stray animals on roads.
Taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 directed relocation of stray canines forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
It also said stray dogs picked up shall not be released back in the place they were picked up. It directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
_vb_27.jpeg)