Hoarding Collapse Case: Bombay HC Upholds Arrest, Denies Relief To Ad Firm Director

The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a plea by Bhavesh Bhinde, a director of an advertising firm, who found himself at the center of a tragic incident in Ghatkopar.

Bhinde, who had been arrested following the collapse of a massive hoarding that killed 17 people and injured over 70, argued that the disaster was an “act of God” and that his arrest was unjustified.

However, the court wasn’t convinced. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande didn’t mince words, stating, “We find no legal infirmity. The ground of illegal arrest and detention by the petitioner is nothing but a faux. There is no impairment in the procedure. The petition is dismissed.” The justices emphasized that the legal procedures safeguarding individual liberty had been meticulously followed, leaving no room for Bhinde’s claims of wrongful arrest.

In his plea, Bhinde sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him, insisting that the May 13 hoarding collapse was beyond anyone’s control—a result of unforeseen natural forces, not human error. Facing charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Bhinde is currently in judicial custody and had also requested interim bail pending the outcome of his plea.

As the director of Ego Media Private Limited, the company responsible for erecting the ill-fated hoarding, Bhinde pointed to a weather bulletin issued by the India Meteorological Department (IMD) on May 12. He argued that the bulletin failed to predict the severe dust storms and gusty winds that swept through Mumbai the next day, leading to the collapse. His plea claimed that the hoarding fell due to “unexpected and unprecedented wind speeds of up to 96 kmph,” and that neither he nor his company could be held responsible for the tragic event.

Bhinde’s defense was that the hoarding had been legally erected with all the necessary permissions in place. Yet, the court’s firm dismissal of his plea suggests that the argument of an “act of God” was not enough to absolve him of responsibility in the eyes of the law.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International