Mumbai: Claiming that there is deliberate deletion of evidence during pending investigations and attempts to subvert criminal justice by offering Rs 40 lakh as blood money, 32-year-old teacher Menal Patel has moved the children’s court at the city sessions court to challenge the release of a 17-year-old driver involved in a high-speed collision that claimed her husband Dhrumil Patel’s life and left her injured.The appeal against the teen submitted through advocate Ruben Mascarhenas, said the “best interest of the child” principle, often used to grant leniency to minors, should not override the “ends of justice” in cases involving grave offences.“The JJ (Juvenile Justice) Act is not a blanket amnesty for juveniles charged with the gravest offences. In cases involving culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where evidence of deliberate recklessness, tampering with evidence, financial capacity to influence proceedings and inadequate parental supervision are all present, the ‘best interest’ principle must be weighed alongside the interest of justice and the rights of victims. The… JJB failed to undertake this balanced exercise,” the appeal said. The prior stunt videos, on Instagram, since deleted, “establish precisely that knowledge and conscious disregard for human life that is the foundation of the charge.”The plea said that the teenager stands charged with one of the gravest offences in the penal code, carrying a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. “The JJB’s superficial analysis of this exception, and its failure to apply it to the specific facts of this case, renders the order erroneous and liable to be set aside,” the appeal said.The appeal follows a March 6 decision by the Suburban Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to grant bail to the teenager, the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), on a bond of Rs 25,000, despite charges of culpable homicide nor amounting to murder.The appeal requested that the court cancel or revoke the bail. It further sought a direction to place him in an observation home while the investigation and trial were pending completion. Alternatively, the appeal stated that if the court chose to maintain the release on bail, it should substantially enhance and modify the existing bail conditions.Last week, Menal petitioned the Bombay high court to seek cancellation of bail that the sessions court granted on March 4 to the driver’s father.On Feb 5, 2026, the couple were heading back to Ghatkopar from Parel, where Dhrumil worked, on his scooter when a car from the opposite direction “violently struck them”, the appeal said. Dhrumil sustained grievous head injuries, rib fractures and fractures to his left knee and right wrist, while Menal too broke her right hand and sustained grievous injuries to her right eye and other parts.The appeal also alleged the teenager was driving without a licence and that his father enabled the incident by giving him the vehicle.The appeal also alleged that the teenager’s family has actively worked to undermine the investigation. The plea referred to the alleged offer of Rs 40 lakh in “”blood money” made by the teenager’s father and his brother. The victim’s family claims this meeting, originally presented as an offer to help with medical expenses, was actually an attempt to buy their silence and force the withdrawal of the police complaint.The appeal also disputes the board’s dismissal of material allegedly showing a pattern of reckless conduct, including Instagram stunt reels. “The… JJB dismissed this evidence on the ground that such prior stunt reels are ‘not directly related to this incident’. This reasoning is legally untenable. The evidence of habitual recklessness goes directly to the ingredient of knowledge under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the BNS..., ie, that the CCL knew his rash driving was likely to cause death,” the appeal said.A key allegation is that the teenager’s Instagram account was deleted while the investigation was underway. Patel has described this as destruction of evidence and a sign of possible future interference. The plea states: “The deliberate deletion of evidence during a pending investigation is itself an independent ground indicating a propensity to interfere with prosecution evidence.” The appeal contended that releasing the teenager—who had already shown a predisposition to destroy evidence—raised a legitimate fear that prosecution witnesses might be influenced.
