Arrested in morning, released by afternoon: Lamborghini crash accused gets bail from Kanpur court

Shivam Mishra, son of local tobacco baron K K Mishra, got bail from a court here on Thursday, just a few hours after his arrest in connection with the high-profile Lamborghini crash that left several people injured on VIP Road earlier this week. After his arrest, police produced 35-year-old Shivam before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate around 10 am, seeking 14 days' judicial custody. District Government Counsel (Crime) Dileep Awasthi said Shivam was released after furnishing a bail bond of Rs 20,000. Police had sought custody for further interrogation, but the court questioned the need for remand. Anant Sharma, a counsel for the accused, said the police had moved an application before the court seeking Mishra's remand but claimed the remand papers had several discrepancies. He also claimed that the documents did not mention details about serving of notice, following which the court rejected the remand plea and ordered the accused's release on bail. Sharma said Kanpur Police had formally arrested Mishra earlier in the morning and produced him before the court around 10 am. After hearing arguments, the court reserved its order and pronounced it after 3 pm, he added. Describing the order as ''just and appropriate'', Sharma said there was no provision for punishment or imposition of fine at this stage and that Shivam had been released on a bail bond. Senior defence counsel Naresh Chandra Tripathi, also appearing for Mishra, told reporters that the arrest was in violation of Supreme Court guidelines and provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). ''I argued before the court that the police had not recorded valid reasons for arrest, particularly when the alleged offences carried a punishment of less than seven years,'' he said. Tripathi said the court, exercising its discretion and taking into account Supreme Court guidelines and BNSS provisions, refused the remand and ordered release of the accused on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 20,000. He also alleged that the police acted under government pressure and termed the arrest illegal. After his release, Shivam walked out of the crowded court premises amid tight security provided by his lawyers. Wearing a white face mask, he made his way through a heavy presence of police personnel, lawyers and media persons before reaching his vehicle. Police said Shivam was arrested from an undisclosed location in the city on Thursday morning, alleging that he had not been cooperating with the investigation. A senior officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed that the accused was trying to evade arrest and had been moving in an ambulance to avoid detection. After a medical examination, he was produced before the court. He appeared slightly unwell during the hearing and was seen with an intravenous cannula, supported by police personnel and relatives. He also objected to mediapersons recording videos outside the courtroom. Another defence counsel Narendra Yadav told the court that the investigating officer failed to present convincing grounds for custodial remand, following which the judge dismissed the plea. The court also pulled up the investigating officer over alleged procedural lapses. In court, Shivam assured that he would cooperate with the probe and would neither threaten witnesses nor tamper with evidence. Tripathi further argued that since the offences mentioned in the FIR carry a maximum punishment of less than seven years, the police could have granted bail at the police station itself without producing the accused before a magistrate. The crash on Sunday, in which the speeding Lamborghini allegedly driven by Shivam rammed into six people, has triggered public outrage and intense scrutiny of the investigation. His father had earlier claimed that his son was not driving the car and accused the police of framing him. However, the police maintained that the investigation established that Shivam was behind the wheel at the time of the accident. In a related development, a man identified as Mohanlal appeared before a court on Wednesday seeking to surrender, claiming that he was driving the car at the time of the accident and not Mishra. The court rejected his plea after the police report did not name him as an accused. In the run-up to his arrest, Shivam had been in a hospital in Delhi undergoing treatment for a medical condition, an official said quoting his family. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) Atul Srivastava said Shivam was arrested based on specific inputs that he had arrived in Kanpur. As many as five police teams were formed to trace and arrest Shivam, as he was not cooperating with the investigation and repeatedly failed to appear before the police for questioning, the DCP said. Mohd Taufeeq, 18, an e-rickshaw driver injured in the crash, lodged a complaint in the matter. However, counsel for the accused later claimed that Taufeeq was not keen on pursuing legal action. The police said that their preliminary probe, supported by CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts, indicated that the car was speeding before the collision. Videos circulating on social media appear to show private security personnel pulling a man believed to be Shivam out of the driver's seat immediately after the crash and then taking him away in another SUV. The police had initially listed an ''unidentified driver'' in the FIR as accused, but later amended it to name Shivam Mishra after preliminary evidence emerged. While the police have stood by their findings, Shivam's father and his counsel have maintained that he was not driving the Lamborghini at the time of the accident. They claimed that a hired driver was at the wheel, and that Shivam was unwell and suffered a medical episode during the ride -- a condition his family says could have contributed to the mishap. Shivam's father also alleged that the car had experienced a technical issue prior to the crash. These assertions are expected to be examined as part of the ongoing investigation and potential medical and forensic evaluations, according to officials. The high-profile case has drawn intense public scrutiny nationwide with many on social media alleging preferential treatment and delayed action by law enforcement following the crash.