BA 904/22
Order
1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 904 OF 2022
(CNR NO. MHCC020051832022)
IN
C.R.NO.179/2022
Mukesh Pradeep Singh
Age: 26 years, Occupation Driver,
R/o: Room No.14, Galli No.32,
Munnuswami Chawl, VileParle
West, Mumbai400056.
….Applicant/Accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Cuffe Parade
Police Station)
…. Respondents.
Adv Mr. Mukesh Mishra for applicant/accused.
APP Mr. Shankar Erande for State.
CORAM:
DATE :
HH THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SMT.C.V.PATIL
(Court Room No.27)
29th June 2022.
ORDER
1.
The present application is filed by accused Mukesh Pradeep
Singh and requested to release him on regular bail. It is the
submission of accused that the statement of informant is doubtful.
However, the application of Section 304(ii) of IPC is lillegal. Actually
Section 304(ii) is bailable in nature and it is not applicable to the
prosecution. The said incident happened because of negligence and
BA 904/22
Order
2
not with intention. Therefore, the accused requested to release him
on regular bail under Section 439 of the IPC.
2.
Prosecution/IO has filed reply at Exhibit 2. In the said reply
they have reproduced summary of the incident and lastly strongly
opposed the bail application on various grounds.
3.
Cr.No.179/22 is registered against accused at Cuffe Parade
Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 304(ii), 337,
338 of the IPC and Sections 185, 134(a)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Except Section 304(ii) rest of the offences are bailable. From the
story of the prosecution, it appears that the accused had driven car
under the influence of liquor. Prosecution has produced alcohol
examination report. The said copy is on record. That report disclosed
that the blood has been taken for alcohol test on the same day of
incident and after analysis the concerned Chemical Analyser opined
that blood found containing 0.192 percent Ethyl Alcohol. From the
report and story of the prosecution, it has come on record that
accused has driven car by consuming liquor. The series of incident
shows that accused had dashed to 5 places out of which and in same
incident one is died and three have sustained grievous injuries.
Though, there is argument from the side of accused that Section
304(ii) is not applicable and the said act is simplicitor happened in
negligence, it covers under Section 304A of the IPC and which is
bailable one. Here 304(ii) is an offence with intention and 304A
BA 904/22
Order
3
attracts only death by negligence. From the report of IO it appears
that he has also got inspected the subject vehicle used by accused at
the time of offence and the concerned officer from the RTO reported
that said incidence/accident not occurred due to mechanical defect in
the vehicle. The report is also supporting to the prosecution story to
show that Section 304(ii) attracts here. As per statement of the
accused if the act had happened with negligence then there would
have been a single dash but after one by one the accused has dashed
to 4 to 5 places out of which one person is died and three have
sustained grievous injuries. The nature of offence committed by
accused cannot be said that it is act done by negligence. Therefore,
prima facie there is no question of applying only Section 304A which
is bailable one. Section 304(ii) is nonbailable cognizable and triable
by Sessions Court. The said offence provides punishment which may
extend to 10 years. However from the story of the prosecution it
appears that after first dash accused dashed to 4/5 places without
realising consequences. This shows nature & gravity of offence. From
record it appears that Section 304(ii) comes here. This observation is
only for considering bail and not on merit.
4.
Investigation officer and prosecution have strong objection to
release the accused on bail. From the report it appears that from the
date of offence that is 12/4/2022 the accused is in custody. The
report further disclosed that investigation is in progress and
therefore, if accused released on bail he will tamper prosecution
BA 904/22
Order
4
evidence. The report disclosed that statement of almost all witnesses
have
been
recorded.
Spot
panchanama,
Vehicle
inspection
panchanama are already conducted. The report itself disclosed that
investigation is at the stage of completion but till now chargesheet is
not filed. Investigation Officer has also seized Car used by accused,
therefore, grounds of objection that if accused released on bail then
he will tamper evidence and he may abscond can be secured by
imposing necessary stringent conditions on accused. Certainly from
the report of the IO nature of offence is serious one and therefore,
stringent conditions needs to be imposed on accused. Accordingly,
following order is passed:
ORDER
1.
Bail Application No.904/2022 is allowed.
2.
The applicant/accused Mukesh Pradeep Singh be released
on bail on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/
(Rs.One Lac)with one or more solvent sureties of like amount.
3. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission
of Trial Court.
4.
The applicant shall give ID proof , Aadhar Card, residence
proof, phone number to Investigation Officer.
5. The applicant is directed to cooperate for investigation and
to attend the police station on every Tuesday in between
11.00a.m. to 1.00p.m.
6.
Applicant shall not to tamper prosecution evidence in any
manner.
BA 904/22
Order
5
7.
No cash bail is allowed.
8.
Thus, Bail Application No.904/22 stands disposed of.
(C.V.PATIL)
Addl.Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.
29/06/2022
Order Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 29/06/2022
: 30/06/2022
: 30/06/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
30/06/2022 5.00 p.m.
Mrs.Jyoti Mane
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Smt. C.V.Patil (CR
27)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of
29/06/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on
30/06/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on
30/06/2022