SA_MANDAWGAD 901 BA 2110-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2110 OF 2026 Rajrushi Rajendrasingh Bidawat … Applicant V/S. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Priyal Sarda a/w. Shubham S. Sejpal i/by Shubham Waphare, for the applicant. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for Respondent–State. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard. Perused the record. 2. Mr. Sarda, learned counsel for the applicant, seeks leave to amend to correct the name of the applicant in the cause-title of the application. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. The applicant seeking his release on bail in connection with Crime No. I-378 of 2024, registered with Worli Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 105(1), 281, 125(b), 238, 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 184, 185, 134(a), 134(b), 187, 122/183 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with Sections 146/196, 115(7)/190, 100(2)/177, 92/177(a) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, and Sections 9(1)/177, 17/177(a), 92/177, 12(1)(e)/177(a) of the Motor Vehicle Driving Rules. 4. The prosecution case is that, at the time of the incident, the applicant was working as driver with Accused No.1-Mr. Rajesh SA_MANDAWGAD 901 BA 2110-26.DOC Damji Shah (A1), who is father of Accused No.3 - Mihir Shah (A3). On 07.07.2024, the applicant drove A3 to a hotel, at Juhu. There, A3 and his three friends, had consumed liquor. Thereafter, the applicant drove A3 and his friends up to Borivali and, dropped the three friends there. Further, the applicant drove A3 to his residence. But, instead of going home, at about 02:30 hours, they went to Marine Drive. At about 05:10 hours, they left from Marine Drive. Meanwhile, at about 04:45 hours, A3 sat at the driver’s seat and the applicant sat besides A3, on the left. From there, A3 drove the car. When the car arrived in front of CJ House, on Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, A3 gave a forcible dash to a two-wheeler which was proceeding ahead of the car. The informant was riding that bike and his wife was a pillion. As a result, the informant fell on the road and his wife got entangled in the bonnet and left front wheel of the car. However, A3 did not stop the car and dragged that woman to a long distance. As a result, the informant and his wife sustained serious injuries and his wife died. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. It is alleged that the applicant did not inform the incident to police nor made any effort to get urgent medical help for the victims. Additionally, the applicant alongwith A1 helped A3 to flee from the spot. Therefore, the applicant came to be arrested. Investigation led to filing of charge-sheet. 5. Mr. Sarda, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the incident had occurred all of a sudden. The applicant cannot charged for the offence of Section 105 nor there is evidence to that effect. The case against the applicant and A1 is similar. The latter is released on bail. Therefore, the principle of parity is applicable in this case. Further, he submitted that the applicant is behind the SA_MANDAWGAD 901 BA 2110-26.DOC bars for the more than two years. The charge is recently framed on 10.06.2026, but, the trial has not sufficiently advanced. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 6. In reply, Mr. Chate, learned APP for the Respondent-State, submitted that the incident occurred on account that the applicant gave the car to A3 to drive, who was drunk. Consequently, this incident occurred. However, the applicant did not help the victims nor reported the matter to the police. Instead, he tried to screen A3 by helping him to flee away. Therefore, bail be refused. 7. I have considered the submissions. Prima facie, it appears that, although A3 was drunk, the applicant allowed him to drive the car. However, the applicant on his own did not tell A3 to drive the car. In the charge-sheet, the applicant is not directly blamed for the alleged offence of Section 105 of BNS. All that is alleged is that, A3 drove the car at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and, caused the accident resulting into injuries to the informant and death of his wife. Therefore, whether the said act of the applicant is an offence punishable u/S.105 BNS, i.e., causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, is a question of trial. Both A1 and the applicant have been charged for the act of helping A3 to flee from the spot. The A1 is released on bail. The applicant is behind bars for the last two years. Mr. Chate, learned APP, states that hearing of the witnesses is yet to commence. The prosecution has cited 54 witnesses. Even if the prosecution examines half of them, the trial will take a considerable time to conclude. The applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He has no criminal antecedents. Page 3 of 5 SA_MANDAWGAD 901 BA 2110-26.DOC 8. In the wake of above, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the following Order: (i) The applicant - Rajrushi Rajendrasingh Bidawat be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR registered with Worli Police Station, Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Worli Police Station, Mumbai, on 1st and 16th day of each calendar month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case there is any change. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for which he has been arraigned in this case. Page 4 of 5 SA_MANDAWGAD 901 BA 2110-26.DOC (vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.09.19 11:40:36 +0530