The Bombay High Court recently ruled on a petition filed by Bhavesh P. Bhinde, the owner of Ego Media Pvt. Ltd., who was arrested in connection with the collapse of a large billboard in Mumbai on May 13, 2024. The collapse, triggered by a severe thunderstorm, resulted in 16 deaths and 64 injuries. Bhinde was charged with several offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He challenged his arrest, arguing that it was illegal and violated his fundamental rights.

The court examined the circumstances of Bhinde's arrest, which took place after a nationwide manhunt. Despite Bhinde's claims of improper arrest procedures and a violation of his rights, the court ultimately upheld the legality of the arrest but quashed the police custody orders. The case underscores the critical importance of following due process in criminal investigations, particularly in high-profile cases with significant public interest.

1. Background of the Incident:

   • On May 13, 2024, a thunderstorm in Mumbai led to the collapse of a massive hoarding structure, causing 16 fatalities and 64 injuries. The incident was catastrophic, with multiple vehicles crushed under the fallen billboard at Samta Colony Petrol Pump.

2. Legal Proceedings and FIR:

   • An FIR was registered at Pant Nagar Police Station, invoking sections 304, 337, 338, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigations revealed that the hoarding was erected by Ego Media Pvt. Ltd. without obtaining the necessary permissions from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).

3. Arrest of Bhavesh P. Bhinde:

   • Bhinde, the director of Ego Media Pvt. Ltd., was arrested after a nationwide manhunt. His arrest took place in Udaipur, Rajasthan, on May 16, 2024. The petition filed by Bhinde challenges the legality of his arrest, alleging that proper procedures were not followed.

4. Petitioner's Claims:

   • Bhinde's counsel argued that the arrest was not in compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines in the D.K. Basu case, particularly regarding the communication of arrest grounds and the timing of the arrest.

5. Court's Analysis:

   • The court examined the arrest procedures and the arguments presented by both sides. While it upheld the arrest's legality, it noted discrepancies in the police custody orders and quashed them.

6. Conclusion:

   • The case highlights the necessity for law enforcement to adhere strictly to legal protocols during arrests, especially in cases involving severe public consequences. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights against unlawful detention.