Hyderabad: The First Information Report (FIR) registered in the Aston Martin crash case that killed 26-year-old Bharati Mukhi has raised questions over why several basic details of the accused have been left blank, even as the complainant’s personal information has been recorded in detail by the police.
The FIR identifies the accused only as “Sanjjush” and records his gender and nationality. However, fields seeking his father’s name, age, address, occupation and other identifying particulars remain blank. His physical description, including height, build, complexion, identification marks, hair, eyes and other details, has also not been filled in.
The contrast is striking: The complainant’s section contains his name, father’s name, age, occupation, mobile number and full address.
The discrepancy has drawn outrage on social media, particularly because the accused has been identified as Lingamaneni Sanjush, son of Pawan Kalyan’s Jana Sena Party MP Lingamaneni Ramesh. The case has already attracted scrutiny over the handling of the accused, who was questioned by police but not arrested.
The FIR, registered by Madhapur police on August 16 under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, records the incident as having occurred near Inorbit Mall at around 3:10 pm that day.
Bharati Mukhi, a Lifestyle employee, was allegedly struck by the Aston Martin while returning to work after collecting lunch. She died in the crash.
Police have defended the decision not to immediately arrest Sanjush, saying the case was registered under Section 106(1) of the BNS, which carries a maximum punishment of five years. DCP Ritiraj said preliminary drug and alcohol tests were negative and that, under the Supreme Court’s Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(1) of the BNSS, arrest was not considered necessary at that stage.
Sanjush was instead served a notice to cooperate with the investigation. Police said the vehicle has been seized, his blood sample sent to the FSL and that further action, including a change in sections or arrest, would be taken if subsequent evidence warrants it.
While an FIR is only the beginning of an investigation and omissions in an initial document do not, by themselves, establish preferential treatment, the blank fields raise questions about whether a common citizen would be given the same leeway. The omissions are particularly difficult to ignore in a case involving the son of a sitting Rajya Sabha MP.
The question being raised is not whether the accused should be presumed guilty, he should not, but whether the same standards of documentation, scrutiny and procedure would have been followed if the accused did not come from a politically influential family.
