A courtroom in Delhi heard fresh arguments in the ongoing BMW accident case, where the accused, Gaganpreet Makkad, asserted that her vehicle never struck the motorbike of the finance official involved in the incident. The proceedings centered on conflicting interpretations of CCTV footage and raised questions about her response immediately after the crash.

Accused Denies Collision Allegation

During the hearing, Makkad’s legal team argued that her BMW was not responsible for colliding with the victim’s two-wheeler. They maintained that available video evidence did not conclusively show her car making contact with the motorbike, challenging the prosecution’s version of events.

Defense Pushes for Bail

Makkad’s counsel requested bail, emphasizing inconsistencies in CCTV recordings and highlighting her actions following the accident. According to her defense, she made efforts to ensure that medical assistance reached the injured finance official quickly, which they argued demonstrated responsibility rather than negligence.

Prosecution Counters Defense Claims

The prosecution strongly opposed granting bail, presenting a different interpretation of Makkad’s conduct. They alleged that instead of prioritizing the victim’s needs, she was more concerned with shielding herself from potential legal consequences. This argument was positioned as evidence of disregard for the injured party’s immediate wishes.

CCTV Footage at Center of Dispute

The case has placed significant weight on surveillance footage from near the accident site. While the defense pointed to gaps and discrepancies in what could be seen on camera, prosecutors insisted that other circumstantial details supported their claim of a collision between Makkad’s car and the motorbike. The interpretation of this footage is expected to play a decisive role in how the court proceeds.

Focus on Post-Accident Actions

Beyond technical evidence, both sides debated Makkad’s behavior after the incident. Her lawyers framed her attempts to arrange medical help as proof of good faith, while prosecutors argued those steps were secondary to her primary focus on avoiding liability. This clash over intent has become central to shaping perceptions of responsibility in court.

The Delhi BMW crash case continues to draw attention due to its conflicting narratives and reliance on contested video evidence. With both sides presenting sharply different accounts—one emphasizing an absence of collision and efforts at aid, and the other stressing self-preservation over compassion—the court faces a complex decision regarding bail and further proceedings. The outcome will hinge on how judges interpret both visual records and human actions surrounding that critical moment on Delhi’s roads.