Rs6 cr Aston Martin seized, police defend decision not to arrest MP’s son | Hyderabad News
HYDERABAD: Police investigating the fatal Aug 16 road accident in Madhapur, which claimed the life of a mall employee, have seized the Aston Martin involved in the crash and sent it for inspection by a motor vehicle inspector (MVI). Police meanwhile defended their decision not to arrest the accused, saying further action will depend on the evidence that emerges during the probe.The luxury car, valued at around Rs 6 crore, is registered in the name of Honer Prime Housing LLP. The MVI report is awaited and will form a key part of the investigation, Kukatpally DCP Ritiraj said in a clarification on Friday. The case, registered (as crime No. 1238/2026) at Madhapur police station, has been booked under section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.Driver tests negative for alcohol, drugsPolice said the accused, Lingamaneni Sanjush, son of Janasena Rajya Sabha MP Lingamaneni Ramesh, was apprehended immediately after the case was registered and subjected to preliminary alcohol and drug tests. Both tests returned negative results. His blood samples were later collected and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for detailed examination.According to police, section 106(1) of the BNS, which carries a maximum punishment of five years’ imprisonment, was invoked based on the facts and circumstances available at the time.Police cite legal provisions for non-arrestResponding to criticism over the decision not to arrest the accused, police said the law required the investigating officer to assess whether arrest was necessary, as the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.They said the decision was guided by section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar vs state of Bihar case. “On an objective assessment of the material then available, no circumstances warranting the arrest of the accused were found to exist,” the DCP said.A notice under section 35 of the BNSS was subsequently issued to the accused, directing him to appear before police and cooperate with the investigation.Police also rejected allegations that the accused had been spared arrest due to external influence, maintaining that the decision was based solely on the legal framework governing arrests and the evidence available at that stage.Further action to depend on evidenceThe DCP said the investigation remains underway and that the MVI report, forensic findings and other relevant evidence would be examined before any further decision is taken. Police said appropriate action, including arrest if warranted by evidence gathered during the investigation, would be taken in accordance with law.Ritiraj described allegations that police had deliberately avoided arresting the accused to favour him as “factually incorrect and legally unsustainable”.
