Bombay High Court

GOVIND ZARNAPPA KAVALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 20 August 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The petition is dismissed; no transfer of investigation is ordered.

Summary

The petitioner, Govind Zarnappa Kavale, sought a transfer of the investigation into his son Dhanraj Kavale's death from the RCF Police Station to the CBI, CID, or another police station, alleging foul play in the motorcycle accident that killed Dhanraj. He argued that Dhanraj did not possess a driving licence, disliked motorcycles, and that the companion Shravankumar Kharatmol's statements and the police's failure to examine CCTV footage raised suspicion. The State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, contended that the death was an unfortunate accident and relied on the senior police inspector's affidavit and the post‑mortem report. The Court examined the evidence, including the post‑mortem, inquest panchnama, and the police’s on‑site investigation, and found no indication of foul play, motive, or investigative deficiency. Consequently, the Court held that the investigation was satisfactory and dismissed the petition, refusing to order any transfer of the case.

Issues considered

Whether the investigation into Dhanraj Kavale's death should be transferred to the CBI, CID, or another police station.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to infer foul play or a need for further investigation.
Whether the police investigation was deficient, particularly regarding the alleged failure to examine CCTV footage.
Whether the petitioner's allegations are maintainable under the law.

Subjects

accidental death
motorcycle accident
transfer of investigation
CBI
police investigation
suspicion
post-mortem report
CCTV footage

Judgment

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.
Digitally

SUMEDH
signed by
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
1/6
NAMDEO SONAWANE
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 2 nd 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 18 th 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…