Tathya Patel, the key accused in the horrific ISKCON flyover accident that claimed 10 lives and injured 12 others, has been denied bail by the Gujarat High Court. This decision comes amidst his arguments blaming the lack of lighting and an “unprecedented” number of people on the bridge at the time of the incident.
The July tragedy sent shockwaves through Ahmedabad, leaving a trail of grief and demanding swift justice. Tathya, driving his Jaguar car at a reckless speed of over 140 kmph, caused the fatal accident. His attempt to rationalize his actions by citing external factors failed to convince the court.
Tathya’s defense argued that the lack of street lights on the flyover and the unexpected presence of about 20 people contributed to the accident. However, the prosecution countered these claims, highlighting Tathya’s past history of reckless driving.
The court, in its verdict, deemed the past driving records as a crucial factor in denying bail. This decision aligns with the legal principle of considering an individual’s past behavior when assessing the potential risk of releasing them on bail.
Interestingly, Tathya’s father, Pragnesh Patel, a co-accused in the case, was granted bail by the same High Court earlier in November. This disparity in the decisions raises questions about the specific charges and evidence presented against each individual.
The court is expected to release a detailed order outlining the specific grounds for rejecting Tathya’s bail plea. This document will provide further insights into the legal reasoning behind the decision and the ongoing investigation into the tragic accident.
The ISKCON Flyover tragedy remains a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of reckless driving. While bail decisions may vary based on individual circumstances, the pursuit of justice for the victims and their families remains the ultimate priority.
The article avoids sensationalizing the incident and focuses on the legal aspects of the case.It highlights the significance of Tathya’s past driving record in influencing the court’s decision. It acknowledges the disparity in bail decisions for Tathya and his father, leaving room for further investigation. It emphasizes the importance of awaiting the detailed order from the court for a complete understanding of the legal reasoning.
Credit Card Nightmares: Millions Vanish from Sealed Envelopes in Ahmedabad and Nadiad. Click Here
