Demanded a 5-day remand to know the ‘fact’ of ISKCON Bridge accident, said- the accused is not mentioning the name of the mug | Iskon Bridge accident case why police demanded a 5-day remand

Accused Tathya Patel and his father Prajnesh Patel, who caused an accident on Chakchari ISKCON Bridge in Ahmedabad and killed 9 people with a Jaguar car, were produced in the Ahmedabad village court at Mirzapur. The police demanded a five-day remand of the accused by presenting the facts. In the interest of justice, the police requested that the accused be remanded to police custody for 5 days in order to conduct a detailed and thorough investigation of the 11 issues. The Crime Squad produced a copy of the case diary and a copy of the report recorded in the station diary regarding the detention of the accused.

Face-to-face arguments for remand for half an hour
For remand Public Prosecutor P.M. Face-to-face arguments between Trivedi and defense counsel Nisar Vaidya went on for half an hour. At that time, PI V B Desai of SG Highway Traffic-2 demanded a five-day remand of the accused. In which 11 points were presented for the remand of the accused for 5 days. However, Ahmedabad Village Court Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate D.M.Bavisi granted a 3-day remand till 4 pm on Monday.

(1) Accused was arrested on July 20 at 7-30 p.m. Earlier, the accused was under treatment at Seams Hospital for an accident and at 6 o’clock he was discharged and brought to the police station. Although the accused was taken to Sola Civil Hospital for treatment on 11/25, the accused has committed a serious crime and he is aware of it. The accused who had spent time in Sola Civil Hospital till 4 am on July 21 got very little time for investigation.

(2) The main accused is concealing the true information about which other friends he met and which friends were riding in the car with him and which cafes/restaurants and pan parlors he visited along with the friends from the time of the accident on July 19 from 11/30 to the time of the accident on July 20. Those which require more time to bring out the correct information remain to be investigated.

(3) The accused in this case does not state at what high speed the car in his possession was driven. So with the help of FSL with the accused, what was the actual speed of this car at that time. Also the light vision of the car should be reconstructed and checked.

(4) The accused in this case who does not tell the correct information about which friends he has called from his mobile phone while leaving his house and has to get the information of WhatsApp chat and call details from the mobile device of him and his friends and seize the mobile phone.

(5) Accused Tathya Patel along with other persons were on board in this case, cross verification of the accused and further investigation of the accused is necessary to bring out the true facts.

(6) Whether the accused in this case has previously committed any such accident offences? And whether any such crimes have been abetted by intimidation or by force of money? It has to be investigated

(7) The accused in this case should be investigated as to which friends have previously logged into many social media, created YouTube or any other horrific video through social media, prepared reels and posted publicly through social media and performed dangerous stunts and driven vehicles at over speed and such investigation requires the presence of the accused.

(8) The accused have to inquire about the owner of the four-wheeler Jaguar car used in the crime at the time of the accident and examine the documents.

(9) After committing the crime of this crime, which members of the public have been threatened by his father and the accused. Presence of the accused is required to bring out the correct information.

(10) Whether the accused has taken any drugs and alcohol with his friends? And if it has been taken, from whom it was taken from where and from which place and which of the friends with whom it was taken, the presence of the accused remains to be investigated.

(11) The accused has to be investigated as to whom the accused was in contact with during this incident and what planning was done