Bombay High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) in an FIR under Sections 110, 132, 281, 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., allowed the application while holding that the applicant-accused’s further incarceration was not warranted considering his future prospects since he was young and highly educated. The Court granted bail subject to furnishing a bail bond worth Rs 1 Lakh and community service wherein the accused would stand near a check post every weekend for three months while holding a banner warning against drinking and driving.
Background
Allegedly, on the day of the incident, around 1 AM, the accused reached the check post where the complainant was stationed. However, despite being asked to stop, the accused did not stop his car and ran into the barricade while fleeing. He violated the next barricade, as he was driving rashly and negligently, and bumped into other cars. Thereafter, he was arrested and taken for medical examination, wherein 42.5 percent alcohol was found present in his blood. Thus, the FIR was lodged, and the accused was taken into custody.
Thereafter, the accused filed the present application.
Analysis
The Court noted that all the sections invoked against the accused were bailable except Section 110 of BNS, and he had been in custody for almost two months. The Court also noted that the accused was an MBA graduate from the Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, and came from a good family.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that further incarceration of the accused was not warranted considering his future prospects since he was young and highly educated.
The Court stated that prima facie, the accused drove negligently in an inebriated state, disobeyed the directions of the complainant, and caused damage to public property i.e., the barricades. Evidently, due to his inebriated state, he did not want to get apprehended and evaded.
The Court also stated that the allegation that he hit two other vehicles in between the two check posts and that any such aggrieved person had lodged a complaint was not borne from the record.
Thus, while placing reliance on Parvez Jilani Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7171, the Court granted bail to the accused subject to the performance of community service and furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 Lakh with one or two sureties of the like amount.
Additionally, the Court placed the following conditions on the grant of bail:
-
The accused was permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of Rs. 1 Lakh for securing his release and he shall replace the same with sureties as directed within four weeks.
-
The accused shall deposit Rs. 50,000 in the Police Welfare Fund as costs for damaging the public property.
-
The accused shall, as his community service, report to the Traffic Officer at the traffic signal at the Worli Naka Junction within two days of his release. The Traffic Officer shall make the accused stand at a particularly visible, well-lit place on the footpath facing the road. From 7:00 to 10:00 PM every weekend for three months, the accused shall stand while holding a banner stating “Don’t Drink and Drive” in bold and big font along with the coloured graphic image
. The Court added that this was to spread awareness about the harmful effects of drinking and driving. The Traffic Officer concerned shall prepare a compliance report of the community service done by the accused and submit it before this Court after three months. -
The driving licence of the accused shall be deposited with the Investigating Officer (‘IO’), retained until the compliance of this order, and returned back only after the status report of compliance was made to the Court.
Lastly, the Court clarified that the observations in this order were for the limited purpose of granting bail and were merely prima facie in nature.
[Sabyasachi Devpriya Nishank v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 5341 of 2024, decided on 23-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Sachin Dhakephalkar
For the respondent: APP Dinesh J. Haldankar
