Final Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: FNo120
IN THE LEARNED ADDL CHIE
9TH
Acw 	be 	e 10,ow
aw 	cash 	scCy
2g74}DA)2s
IN
JUDICIAL
COURT 	OF BANDRA,MUMBAI
BAIL 	APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
PIR NO.145 OF 2025
MAHIM 	POLICE STATION
MAGISTRATE
DISTRICT: MUMBAI
IN 	THE 	MATTER 	UNDER 	SECTION
480OF BNSS (437 0F CR.P.C 1973)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF C.R NO.145 OF
2025 	REGISTERED 	WITH 	MAHIM
POLICE STATION
AND
IN 	THE 	MATTER 	FOR 	OFFENCES
UNDER SECTIONS 	281AND 125(a) OF
BHARATIYA 	NYAYA 	SANHITA 	2023
R/W 	184 OF MÚTOR VEHICLE ACT
1988
Acc -1
Cash bail Amount
Deposited by the Accused vide
Receipt No. 	Qo623
Head Cashier
1
ACJM Bandra Court, Mumbai
-- 1 of 18 --
NAMANNARENDRAJAIN
CURRENTLY
RESIDING. AT 	ROOM NO 104
AGE:
29
PEARS
O0CC:ADVOCATE
MILLENIUMAPARTMENT
NEAR WESTERN
EXPRESS
HIGHWAY
CHAKALA
ANDHERI EAST
MUMBAI 400099
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...APPLICANT
THROUGH THE SENIOR POLICE INSPECTOR	MAHIM POLICE STATION
RESPONDENT
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION 	OF 	THE
PETITIONER 	UNDER, SECTION480 	OF
BNSS (437 	OF CRPC)
-- 2 of 18 --
1)
MOST 	RESPECTFULLY 	SHOWETH
with the officers of Mahim
The 	above named Applicant
states
that
arrainged as 	an accused in FIR No. 145 	of 2025 registered
for 	the offence punishable
Came
Police
Station
on 2nd
Vehicle Act.
to be
under section 281 and
April 2025
of 	Bharatiya Nyaya 	Sanhita (BNS) 2023 r/w 184 of 	Motor
125(a)
r/w 184 of Motor Vehicle Act.
2) 	The 	above named respondent is the senior police officer of
Mahim Police Station in EIR No. 145 of 2025 registered on
3
2nd April 2025 for the offence punishable under section
281 	and 	125(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 	2023
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTIONS CASE.
3) 	The 	original complainant 	nas 	narrated 	certain 	alleged
of 	Mahim Police Station which 	are as follows:
allegation in 	her complaint
front 	of the investigation officer
-- 3 of 18 --
Housekeeper, R1
Room 	No. 175, Matunga Labour Camp
Mrs. Usha Sahebrao Jadhav 	Age 	50 	years 	Occupation-
RamabaiNagat;
00019
Mo No.
8657086310
Behind Building
Thereby
answer
thattI am as above 	and I am residing at	theabove mentioned address in 	my own 	house 	with 	my
elder son 	Manoj Age 	31 	years, 	Akash 	Jadhav 	Age 	26
years, and his wife. Name 	Saru Age 22 years. 	My children
are otng private jobs and I am doing housekeeper 	work
in Mahim andI am living 	on the income from it.
No. 5 Dharavi Mumbai
Ileave my house on foot 	every 	morning at 10.00 am and
goto do housework 	at 	Senapati 	Bapat 	Marg, 	Perera
taeion 	Monistal Building, 	Mahim 	West 	Mumbai 	16.
Todau. 	after finishig work at my house at 	11.00 am, I
lef for Mahim 	on foot. 	I crossed 	the 	bridge 	over the
railway line and got down on the Dakshinvahini Marg at
Senapati Bapat Marg and while crossing the road near
the signal at Saraswati School, at around 11.20 am, 	a
motor car 	No. MH 02 DS 7203 going towards Dadar hit
treatment
me hard. 	Due to this, 	Ifell on the road and got injured on
my face, right. shoulder, right 	knee and my nose and lips
started 	bleeding. from the 	wounds. 	The 	driver 	of the said
motor 	car first 	took 	mne 	to 	Raheja 	Hospital 	Mahim 	for
and then he dropped me for treatment at Sion
Hospital 	and left 	from there. 	At that time, 	when I asked
the 	name 	and address ofthe person 	who had caused 	me
the 	accident, 	he told 	me that 	his 	name 	was 	Naman
-- 4 of 18 --
Narendra Kumar
left.
Jain,
Millennium Apartment Chakala,
Andheri 	East 	Mumbai.
After that, the said 	person left 	me at Sion 	H	Hospital and
resident 	of
around 	11.20 am, the
Flat 	No.
However, today, 	on 01/04/ 2025, 	while I 	was 	walking
from 	my residence 	to 	Mahim to 	do housework,
	while
crossing the 	road 	at 	Senapati Bapat 	Marg Mahim 	West
Mumbai 	16 	at 	the 	signal 	near Saraswati School, 	at
104,
driver of Mo/Car No. MH 02 DS
7203, Name 	Naman 	Narendra Kumar Jain, Resident Flat
No. 	104, 	Millennium 	Apartment Chakala, Andheri 	East
Mumbai, 	who 	was going ata high speed towards Dadar,
COPY OF FIR NO. 145 OF 2025.
hit 	me hard, causina inuriestomu face, nose, lipS, rngrt
knee, right shoulder, andI havea legal complaint against
him.
bailable in nature.
HERETO MARKED AND ANNEXED AS 	EXHIBIT 	AIS A
5
invoked by the Mahim police officers are
4) 	The above 	named Applicant states that certain section
cognizable and
5) 	The 	above named
Applicant 	states 	that 	during 	the
pendency of the investigation
	he had co-operated 	with the
-- 5 of 18 --
investigation and
was 	not arrested by 	the officers 	of
MahinPoliceStation.
6)
The
above
named
Applicant states 	that 	the officers 	of
Mahim Police Station 	was 	pleased to issue 	notice 	under
section 190 of BWSS informing 	him that the investigation
with respect to FIR No..145 	of 	2025 has 	been 	completed
and chargesheet is being filed 	before this 	Honble 	Court.
HERETO MARKED 	AND ANNEXED AS EXHIBIT 	BIS 	A
coPYOF NOTICE DATED 15T# JUIY O0og
7 	Hence 	the 	above-named 	applicant 	approaches 	this
Hon ble Court in 	the 	exercise 	of its jurisdiction under
section 480 OF BNSS (437 of 	Cr.P.C 1973) and prays for
Deng released on 	bail in the event of his arrest in FIR
No.145 of 2025 registered 	with the officers of 	Mahim Police
Station on 2nd April 2025 for the offence punishable under
section 281 and 	125(a) 	of Bharatiya Nyaya 	Sanhita (BNS)
2023 	r/w 	184 	of 	Motor 	Vehicle 	Act 	on the 	following
-- 6 of 18 --
amongst other grounds which are urged herein below and
are without prejudice 	to One
another:
-
GROUNDS
A. 	The above named Applicant statesthat _he has been
falsely
named and implicated 	in officers 	of 	FIR No.145 	of 2025
registered 	with 	the officers of Mahim Police Station on 2nd
April 2025 for the 	offence punishable under section 281 and
125(a) 	of 	Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 r/w 184 	of
Motor Vehicle Act.
7
B. The 	above 	named 	Applicant states that 	a bare reading of
officers 	of Mahim Police 	Station prime 	facie 	discloses 	a
confabulated and drummed up story trying really hard to
prime facie disclose offences as postulated under section
281 and 125(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 r/w
184 	of 	Motor Vehicle 	Act and thereby falsely 	name 	and
implicate the applicantin the said 	case.
-- 7 of 18 --
C. The
Above-named
Applicant 	states that 	FIR No.145 	of 	2025
registered with the officers 	of 	Mahim 	Police 	Station on 	2nd
April 2025for the offence punishable 	under 	section 	281 	and
125(a) 	of Bharatiya
Nyaya 	Sanhita (BNS) 	2023 r/w 	184 	of
Motor Vehicle 	Act 	is 	nothing 	but 	a 	gross 	abuse 	of 	the
process of the law by the ognal Complainone
D. A bare 	perusal 	of the Impugned 	FIR 	would 	clearly reveal
that prima facie otfences as postulated sections punishable
section 281 and 125(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
2023 r/w 184 of Motor Vehicle Act has not been made out.
E. The 	above-named 	Applicant 	states 	that 	the 	original
complainant 	has approached 	the 	police 	machinery 	for
registration of 	FIR after 	1 day of 	unexplainable 	delay which
ltselr creates a 	doubt in in 	the said allegation.
F. 	The incident, as per FIR, 	relates to 	a road traffic accident.
There 	is no allegation 	of intention 	to 	harm, 	nor 	any
elements of culpable mental state or malice.
-- 8 of 18 --
G.The above named 	Applicant states that 	at the time 	of the
alleged 	incident, 	he 	was 	driving 	his vehicle 	well 	within the
legally 	permitted 	speed 	limit and in a cautiOus 	manner. The
complainant, 	without 	utilizing the 	designated 	pedestrian
crossing 	(zebra
roadway 	fr
Crossing),
from 	between
reasonable
suddenly emerged 	onto 	the
obstacles, giving the Applicant no
opportunity 	to 	react 	or 	avoid the 	collision. 	The
unfortunate 	incident 	Occurred 	due to the 	complainant's
Own contibutory negligen ce in attempting to cross the road
at 	an 	undesignated and unsafe location, rather than any
rash or negligent act on the part of the Applicant.
paid 	for 	the
H. The 	above-named 	Applicant 	states 	as 	per 	the 	FIR; 	the
Applicant himself took the injured to the hospital as well as
9
medical
cOoperated with the police.
expenses 	which 	is
demonstrating Bonafide conduct. 	Thereafter, 	he 	fully
-- 9 of 18 --
HERETo
ANNEK
AND
MARKE 	AS EXHIBIT 	C cOPY 	OF
1. 	The above
named
Applicant states the 	Hon 	ble 	Courts have
routinely
held that bail
should
	be granted in 	cases 	of 	motor
accidents,
especially
when 	medical 	aid 	was
MEDICAL RECEIPT8
extended
by the
accused.
J. 	The above-named
Applicant 	states 	that 	it 	is 	a 	settled
principle that if the Investigating 	Agency 	does not find 	it
necessary
promptly
to arrest the accused during investigation, there
is no justification for denying bail after filing of charge sheet.
K. The above-named Applicant states that the offences alleged
are 	either 	bailable 	or 	punishable 	up 	to 	3 	years
imprisonment.
L. The 	above named 	Applicant 	states 	that 	there
10
is no
allegation of 	tampering 	with evidence 	or 	influencing 	any
witness. The 	complainantt is 	an independent person and the
entire case is based 	on 	documentary and 	medical 	evidence.
-- 10 of 18 --
M.The above named 	Pplicant states that no fruitful purpose
will 	be served with 	h Incarceration as everything has been
recovered from the 	Pplicant and all documents 	have been
handed 	ove 	to the investigating o
officer.
N. The 	Hon 	ble 	Supreme 	Court in 	Arnesh 	Kumar u. 	State of
Bihar, (2014) 	8 SCC 273 	held that arrest is 	not 	mandatory
in 	every 	case 	and that the police 	must justify the 	necessity
of arrest.
11
0. ln 	the 	present 	case 	he 	Investioating 	Officer 	has 	nOL
arrested the 	accused during the entire investigation, 	which
shows that his custodial interrogation was not required.
P. The above named Applicant states once the chargesheet is
filed 	without 	arrest, bail 	becomes 	the 	rule, 	not 	the
exception.
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 	10 	SCC 51 	- 	The
Supreme Court has clearly held that if the accused 	was not
-- 11 of 18 --
arrested during the investigation 	and 	cooperated, 	he 	is
entitled
to bail
once
the chargesheet is 	filed.
Q. The
above
named
Applicant
states 	the Hon'ble SuprerneCourt passedin 	Crimina 	Appeal 	No.742 	of 	2020 	(Arising
out of SLP(Crl) No. 5598 of 	2020) 	of 	Arnab 	Goswami 	verSus
State ofMaharashtra & 	Ors 	which 	are as 	follows:
57 While considering an application for the 	grant of 	bail under	Article 226 in a suitable 	case, the 	High Court 	must 	consider the	settled factors 	which emerge from the 	precedents of this 	Court.	These factors can be summarized as follows:
n The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the	2ccusation and the severity of the punishment in the case	ofa conviction;
() Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of	the accused tampering with the witnesses or being athreat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(i) 	The possibility of securing the presence of theaccused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused
fleeing from justice;
(M) 	The antecedents of and circumstances which are
peculiar to the acCUsed;
(V) 	Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are
made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in
the FIR; and
() 	The significant interests of the public or the State and
Oher similar considerations.
58 These 	principles 	have 	evolved 	over 	a period 	of time 	and
emanate 	from 	the 	following (among 	other) 	decisions: 	Prahlad
Singh Bhati 	Vs 	NCT 	Delh"; 	Ram 	Govind 	Upadhyay 	vs
Sudarshan 	Singh2. 	State of UP vs Amarmani Tripathi; Prasanta
-- 12 of 18 --
and 	P Chidambaram vs Central Bureau of Investigation36Kumar Sarkar 	vs 	Ashis Chatterjee"; Sanjay 	Chandra vs CB35,
jurisdiction under 	Article 226 of the Constitution 	when the court is
59 	These 	principles 	are egually applicable to the exercise of
called upon to
which are as followS:
secure
BAIL IS THE RULE
the liberty of the accused...
1) The 	above named pplicant 	states the 	Hon'ble 	Supreme
Court passed 	in Miscellaneous Application 	No..1849 of 202 1
in 	Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.5191 	of 2023 of 	Satender
Kumar 	Antil 	Versus 	Central 	Bureau 	of Investigation & Anr
13
11. The principle thot hoil is the rule and jail is the exception has
been well recognised throuah the repetitive 	pronouncemens o
this Court. This again is on the touchstone of Article 21 of tne
Constitution of India. This court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v.
Union 	of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1, held that:
"19. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbiav. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbiav.
State 	of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 SCC (Cri) 465], the purpose of
granting bail is set out with greatfelicity as follows: (SCC Pp. 586-88, paras
27-30)
"27. It is not necessary to refer todecisions which deal with the riaht
toordinary bailbecause that right does not furnish an exact parallel
to theright toanticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as lona
back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra
Nath Chakravarti, In re (Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re, 1923 SCC
OnLine Cal 318:AIR 1924 Cal 4766:1924 Cri LJ 732), AIR pp. 	479-80
that the objectofbail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the
trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question
whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable
that the party wil appeartotake his trial and that it is indisputable
that bail is not to be withheld 	as 	a punishment. In two other cases
are to be found regarding the right to bail which 	deserve a special	which, Significantly,
arethe "MMeerut Conspiracy cases" observations
-- 13 of 18 --
1931 AlI
Section 498
mention
In
KN
Joglekar v. Emperor [K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor, 1931SCCOnLineAl60O.:AIR
the Migh
Court
widepowers,to grant bail which 	were not handicapped
Soction 439ofthe Code that it conferred upon the Sessions Judge or
no
hardand-fast rule and 	no inflexible principle governing the
by
the
restrictionsin the preceding Section 497 	which corresponds to
the
present
Section
432 It was observed by the Court that there was	exercise ofthe disCretion conferred, by Section 498 and that the only
504:1932 Cri LJ 94] it was observed,which corresponds to the present
while dealing with
established
Emperor
principle which was
exercisedjudiciously. In
was that the discretion should be	v. 	H.L. Hutchinson [Emperor v. 	H.L.Hutchinson,
1931 SCC OnLine All 14: AIR 1931 All 356: 1931 Cri LJ
attempt to lay down any 	particular rules 	which 	will bind the High
121), AIR p. 358 it Was said that it 	was 	very unwise to 	make an
discretion
of the COurt unfettered. According to the High Court, the
Court having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the
variety of cases that may 	arise from time to time cannot be safely
andtosaythatin particular classes 	a bail may be granted but not in	classifed
anditiss dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases
other classes. It was observed that the principle to be 	deduced from	the variouss sections in the 	Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of
enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and	to properly defend himselfthan if he were in custody. As a presumably
bailis the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who
innocent person he is therefore 	entitled to freedom 	and 	everyopportunity to look after his own case. 	Apresumably innocent person	must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.
28 Coming nearer home, it Was observed by Krishna lyer, I. in Gudikanti
Margsimhulu v. State (Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State, (1978) 1 SCC 240 :
1978 SCC (Cri) 115] that: (SCCp. 242, para 1)
1. . the issue [of bail] is one of liberty, justice, public safety and
burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed
jurisprudence of 	bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial
process. 	After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is
jundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of "procedure
established by law" The last four words of Article 21 are the life of
that human right.'
14
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. 	State (UT of Delhi) [Gurcharan Singh v. State (UTof Delhi), (1978) 1 SCC .118: 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] it was observed by Goswami,J, who: spoke for the Court, that: (SCCp. 129, para 29)
bail. The facts and circumstances offeach case will govern the exercise
29. 	There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter ofgranting
ofjudicial 	disscretion in grantingor cancelling bail.'
30. In. AMERICANJJORISPRUDENCE (2nd, Vol. 8,p. 806, para 39), it is stated:
-- 14 of 18 --
Where 	the
granting or
24. Article
circumstances 	of 	each particular 	case. 	Since the 	object 	of the
primary inquiry is 	Whethera recognizance or bond 	would effect that
detention or imprisonment of the accused Ís to secure his appearance
granting
denial is
and submission to
end.'
of bailIies within the discretion of the court, the
regulated, to 	alarge extent, by the facts and
the jurisdiction and the judgmnent of the court, the
for its answer upon a Variety of circunstances, the cumulative effect
of 	which 	must 	enter 	into the judicial verdict. 	Any 	one 	single
It is thus clear that the
circumnstance 	cannot
question whether to grant
necessarily justifying the granttor refusal of bail."	be treated as of universal validity
XXX XXX XXX
21 	is the Ark of the Co
bailor not depends
Chapter of the Constitution is Covenant so far as the Fundamen tal Rights
than the rights of life and Concerned. It deals with nothing less sacrosanct
persons. It is the only article in the
personal liberty of the ctizens of India and other
Article 20) that cannot be suspended
Fundamental Rights Chapter (along with
even in an emergency (see Article 359(1)
or as
[Maneka Gandhi v. 	Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248]."
of the 	Constitution]. At present, Article 	21 is the repository of a vast number of
SUbstantive 	and procedural 	righte 	nostManeka Gandhi 	v. 	Union 	o
15
22. From the earliest times, it was
pending completion oftrial coula be
12.Further this Court in Saniov Chandrav. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has
observed that:
21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest
times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person
at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive
nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment,
unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when
called upon. The courts owe more than 	verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent 	untilduly tried and duly foundguilty.
appreciated that detention in custodv
a cauSe ojgreat hardship, 	Eromte
time, 	necessity demands that some 	unconvicted persons should be held in
custody pending trialtosecuretheir attendance at the trial but in such cases,
the concept ofpersonal
liberty enshrined. in the Constitution that any 	person	"necessity" is the operative
test In this country, it would be quite contrary to
should be punished in respectof any 	matter, 	upon 	which, 	he has not 	been
convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be 	deprived of his liberty
upon only the 	beliefthat he willtamper 	with the witnesses 	if left at liberty,
save in the most extraordinary
vcircumstances.
-- 15 of 18 --
23
Apar
om
the
questioofprevention
being the object of refusal of bail,
refnse
hailas
a
makof
fdisapproval of former conduct whether the accusedhos a
substantial
punitive
cOntent and it would be improper for 	any court to
has
been
convictedforitor.not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for
the
purpone
ofoiving
him a taste of
fimprisonment as alesson."
One
mut
not
lose
sight
o
of New
Delhi in BAIL
fthefact
The above
named
Applicant
states the 	Honble 	High 	Court.
follows:
that any imprisonment before conviction
APPLN..3710 	of 2021 	which 	are 	as
Althe evidence is 	documentary in nature and even 	as 	per 	the
prosecution
the material 	register 	has 	also been recovered. 	Co-
accused has already 	been 	granted 	bail. 	Therefore, in 	these
circumstances the. custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
requireddas nothing is to be recovered from him.
s. The 	above-named 	Applicant 	states 	that 	he 	shall 	not
investigation.
abscond and there is 	no likelihood that he shall tamper with
investigation 	since 	he
the evidence and/or in any other manner tamper with the
has 	already 	corporate 	with
T. The above named 	Applicant 	shall 	abide 	by 	any 	such
conditions as 	may 	be imposed by this 	Hon'ble 	Court.
-- 16 of 18 --
U.The
albove-named 	Pplicant haye 	roots in society and 	is
ready 	to 	COoperate 	the 	investigation 	as and 	when called
upon.
w The above-named Applicant have 	not filed 	any
Application before this 	Court, the Hon'ble 	High 	Court
and/or 	Hon'ble Supreme Court
Application is the first Application.
a)
other
W.That the above-named 	Applicant craves leave to add, 	alter
17
of 	India. 	The 	said
as averred in the above Application.
and/or 	modify all 	or any of the paragraphs and/or grounds
IT HUMBLY PRAYED TO THIS 	HON'BLE 	COURT:
That 	this 	Hon ble 	Court 	be 	pleased 	to 	enlarge 	the
Applicant on bail in 	FIR No.145 of 2025 registered with
Bharatiya Nyaya
the officers of Mahim Police Station on 2nd April 2025 for
the offence punishable under section 281 and 125/a) of
Sanhita (BNS) 2023 r/w 184 of Motor
-- 17 of 18 --
b)
AND
Vehicle
Act
on
such
teImg
	and conditions as this Hon'ble
Court
mav
deem
fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
That
this
Hon ble
Court
is pleased to enlarge the ApplicantOn Permanent Cash bail 	FIR 	No.145 	of 	2025 registered
withthe officers of Mahim 	Police Station 	on 	2nd 	April 	2025
for the offence punishable 	under 	section 281 	and 125(a)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 r/w 184 	of Motor
Vehicle Act on such terms 	and 	conditions 	as this 	Honble
Court may deem it andproper inthe interest of justice
c 	That this Hon ble Court be pleased to pass such other and
further orders as it deems fit and proper to meet the ends
of justice.
FOR THIS 	ACT 	OF
APPLICANT/ACCUSED SHALL 	EVER PRAY.Place: Mumbai
Date: 21s JULY 2025
KINDNESS,
Advocate For Applicant)
THE
-- 18 of 18 --