Courts may exercise discretion to grant bail to young, first-time offenders in non-heinous cases by balancing the gravity of the offence with the applicant's personal circumstances, while imposing innovative conditions like community service to ensure accountability and public awareness.

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J

1. Heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Haldankar, learned APP for Respondent-State.

2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Regular Bail in connection with C.R. No. 575 of 2024 registered with Andheri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 110, 132, 281, 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Applicant is incarcerated since 28.11.2024.

3. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 28.11.2024 First Informant/Complainant was on night duty and was stationed at Gokhale Bridge, Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai for Blockade (Nakabandi) Check Post. At about 01:05 in the night, one motor car bearing No. MH47-Q-1349 came there but did not stop inspite of the fact that First Informant/Complainant asked him to stop and dashed the barricade and went away. Therefore First Informant/Complainant chased the said motor car. However the Applicant - accused did not even stop at the next Blockade (Nakabandi) Check Post at Holy Family School, Mahakali Road and there also gave dash to the barricades and tried to flee away and while doing so he drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to 2-3 moving motor cars. Thereafter Applicant-Accused was accosted from the same spot and taken for medical examination for detection of alcohol and 42.5% alcohol was found in the blood. Thereafter present crime was lodged against Applicant – Accused and he was taken into custody.

4. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant would submit that First Informant/Complainant alongwith police machinery have misused their powers by registering the crime against Applicant on the basis of convoluted facts. He would submit that except Section 110 of BNS, all other sections invoked are bailable and in so far as Section 110 is concerned the same is not applicable to Applicant herein but only in order to indict Applicant in a serious crime the said section has been invoked against him. He would submit that even assuming for the sake of argument that prosecution case is true, even then only offence of rash and negligent driving would be disclosed against the Applicant upon consideration of the entire gamut of record and not an offence under Section 110 of BNS. He would submit that Applicant is a highly educated young individual working as Senior Vice President in a NBFC namely Centrum Wealth Limited and his indictment and incarceration in such a crime would be detrimental to his future career prospects. He would submit that Applicant is incarcerated since almost two months and his further incarceration is unwarranted considering the facts of the present case. Hence he would pray that Applicant be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions as imposed by this Court.

5. PER CONTRA, Mr. Haldankar, learned APP for Respondent State would submit that the offence is serious in nature and the Accused has acted in a negligent manner by driving in an inebriated state and flouting the directions of public servant i.e. First Informant/Complainant. He would submit that Applicant was accompanied by one female who was also in an inebriated state who was the co- occupant in the car and Applicant flouted the direction of First Informant/Complainant on two occasions and did not stop, causing injury/damage to 2/3 moving cars and also to a police personnel.

6. I have perused the record of the case. It is prima facie seen that Applicant is a MB