MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
Appearance:
MR YOGESH S.LAKHANI, Senior Advocate with MR MAUNISH T PATHAK,
ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No. 1
==========================================================
dated
Addl.Sessions
13.7.2015
Judge,
Sessions
Case
judgment,
the
no.41
by
Ahmedabad
of
applicant
2013.
has
the
(Rural)
By
been
2nd
in
impugned
convicted
184
of
the
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
for
Page 1 of 21
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
each
victims.
compensation
Thereby,
awarded
is
total
Rs.10
amount
Lacs.
of
However,
compensation
is
to
be
paid
within
Since
this
application
is
u/s.389
of
the
Appellate
recorded
by
execution
Court
it
of
in
the
may,
for
writing,
sentence
reasons
order
or
to
that
order
be
the
appealed
pending
the
judgment
and
order
of
by him
conviction.
the
Appellate
Courts;
against
prosecutor
for showing
such release
Page 2 of 21
cause in
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
it
becomes
are no specific
enactment
for
clear
and
reasons
obvious
assigned
consideration
of
that
by the
such
an
prosecutor
where
sentence
Thereby,
is
though
for
cases
more
where
than
10
conviction
years.
is
for
not
be
strict
opportunity
to
the
cause
why
that
requirement
public
bail
to
extend
prosecutor
should
not
be
to
an
show
granted.
State,
though
they
have
received
advance
up;
Honble
upon
Supreme
the
Court
latest
in
decision
the
case
of
of
the
Atul
Page 3 of 21
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
victims
thereby
families
they
are
have
chasing
the
come
forward
also
trial
to
and
seek
for
bail.
However,
though
it
is
appearance
support
the
is
refused
with
learned
Sp.P.P.
in
liberty
objecting
to
the
disclosed
preferring
by
them
that
appropriate
they
proceeding
are
also
seeking
learned
advocate
for
victims
families
are
Page 4 of 21
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
though
in
CAV ORDER
my
view,it
is
necessary
only
if
Submissions
by
the
learned
senior
counsel
Pathak
for
the
applicant
may
be
summarized as under:5.1
The
trial
Court
has
adopted
a strange
This
vehicle
is
with
footpath,
moving
not
case
pedestrian
but
it
vehicles
altogether
is
an
and,
different
of
or
accident
an
by
occupant
a
of
accident
between
two
thereby,
there
are
facts
and
evidence,
and
thus, the position and situation than the wellknown cases of Sanjeev Nanda and Alister Anthony
Pereira
both
(2012)2
SCC
reported
648
in
(2012)8
respectively.
SCC
450
Thereby,
and
when
is
better
conviction
confirmed
and
u/s.304
with
Part
in such reported
Page 5 of 21
less
II
of
calamity,
the
IPC
when
is
cases, there is no
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
Nature
considered
in
of
incident
detail
with
requires
evidence
to
on
be
record,
unwarranted
and
at
the
most,
it
may
be
is
of
total
innocence,
both
for
the
The
investigation
was
not
proper
into
consideration,
the
speed
of
other
Even
Vehicle
the
fact
Rules
by
regarding
the
violation
victim
has
of
been
Even
the
speed
of applicants
car
was
Page 6 of 21
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
regarding
CAV ORDER
speed
of
the
car
is
without
any
the
applicant
is
relying
upon
following
decisions:Alister
Anthony
Maharashtra
reported
(1)
which
the learned
Periera
in
Vs.
(2012)2
State
SCC
senior counsel
648
of
from
the
applicant
about
the
result
of
such
in
huge
numbers
and
when
the
accident
is
State
through
PS
Lodhi
Colony,
New
Delhi
paragraphs
114
to
121
Page 7 of 21
of
such
judgment
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
state,
confirmed
the
the
Honble
conviction
Supreme
of
two
Court
years
has
only.
proved,
may
fall
u/s.304-A
of
the
IPC
and
For
such
submission,
applicant
is
relying
He
is
also
relying
upon
the
decision
of
37;
whereas
relying
upon
the
order
dated
of
2014
by
the
Honble
Supreme
Court
release
relying
the
upon
applicant
the
on
judgment
bail.
and
He
is
order
also
dated
Page 8 of 21
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
The
State
of
Maharashtra
submitting
that
As
against
that,
learned
Special
Public
are
several
application.
His
reasons
for
rejecting
submissions
are
applicant
is
such
summarized
as
under:7.1
Now,
beyond
the
reasonable
decision
is
after
doubt
by
found
guilty
Trial
Court
of
evidence
evaluation
whose
and,
of
conviction,
sentence
cannot
be
suspended.
7.2
According
to
settled
legal
position,
bail
can
be
refused
in
absence
of
any
The
applicant
has
Page 9 of 21
failed
to
show
any
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
contrary,
circumstances
are
against
the
two conditions
of bail imposed
by the
So far
as condition
(c)
is concerned,
Chaudhary.
witnesses
have
Thereby,
categorically
though
stated
in
these
their
Page 10 of 21
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
many
as
14
other
documentary
evidences
on
Application
prosecution
has
no.5012
proved
the
of
2014,
involvement
of
the
the
on
record
that
present
applicant
has
the
purpose,
he
is
relying
upon
the
the
most
important
Page 11 of 21
eye-witness
to
the
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
additional
evidence
by
calling
the
confirmed
that
accused
was
driving
the
conditions
Court
for
imposed
granting
by
bail,
the
which
Honble
Supreme
are
reproduced
(f)
regarding
herein above.
7.7
So
far
as
condition
5 members and
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
and
therefore,
there
is
no
reason
or
applicant
is
consideration
required
inasmuch
to
as
be
after
taken
the
into
incident,
taking
them
to
hospital
or
by
calling
to
take
care
of
his
vehicle
or
to
who
was
driving
the
vehicle
at
the
lacunae
in
investigating
procedures
Page 13 of 21
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
7.9
So
CAV ORDER
far
as
nature
of
incident
is
that
their
engine
is
equipped
with
In
concerned,
any
it
notification
case,
is
of
so
far
submitted
local
as
that
authority,
speed
there
is
was
restraining
than
the
report,
it
amounts
to
gross
Learned
6(d)
and
Sp.P.P.
8
of
is
the
also
Rules
relying
upon
of
Road
the
Regulations, 1989.
7.11
the
observations
of
the
Honble
Supreme
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
said
that
in
such
cases,
conviction
includes
paragraph
35
from
AIR
2012
SC
Learned
Sp.P.P.
is
relying
upon
following decisions:a. Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in (1999)4 SCC 421;
b. Kanaka Rekha Naik Vs. Manoj Kumar Pradhan &
Anr.reported in AIR 2011 SC 799;
c.
Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
Vs.Roshan Lal Saini reported in (2012)12 SCC 390;
d.
Shiv Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in
(2008)17 SCC 122 and;
e.
K.C.Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh reported in
(2001)6 SCC 584;
8.
and
appropriate
evidences
in
to
detail
discuss
to
arrive
all
the
at
any
have
ascertain
to
decide
that
the
whether
bail
in
application
given
facts
to
and
reference
to
the
decision
of
Honble
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
he
files
an
appeal
under
any
statutory
the
very
valuable
right
of
appeal
bail
is
not
matter
of
course
and
the
convict
concluding
on
bail
paragraph
pending
14,
the
the
appeal.
Honble
In
Supreme
recorded
by
the
trial
Court
and
the
it
is
awarded
on
fit
by
bail
case
the
during
for
trial
the
suspending
the
Court
and
his
of
the
pendency
appeal.
9.
In
State
of
Karnataka
Vs.
Krishnappa
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
impose
sentence
commensurate
with
the
for
justice
by
the
society
in
cases
of
extenuating
available
on
imposition
or
the
of
prescribed
mitigating
record
any
minimum
which
sentence
to
circumstances
the
may
less
justify
than
respondent.
To
the
show
Honble
observed
in
The
Supreme
paragraph
Court
of
India,
that
if
someone
has
is
counterproductive.
One
can
preempt
or
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
bail.
11.
either
side
sentence
and
bail
to
or
i.e.
thereby
refuse
either
to
release
the
suspend
the
same.
The
the
applicant
on
evidence
on
in
favour
of
the
so as to immediately
applicant
release
him on
future,
more
particularly,
when,
now,
hearing,
to
and
argue
therefore,
the
if
appeals,
parties
there
is
are
no
Whereas,
on
the
contrary,
it
has
been
required
appellants
are
to
not
be
argued,
available.
In
practically,
the
present
are
ready
and
willing
to
proceed
in
the
bail
assigned
in
Page 18 of 21
the
cases
of
Kiran
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
Kumar
CAV ORDER
& Bhagwan
Rana (supra)
position
for
granting
bail
in
any
such
pointed
relevant
out
material
and
that
in
able
fact
to
show
with
applicant
has
is convicted,
basis
treated
as
an
by
the
applicant,
exceptional
which
circumstance
can
in
be
his
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
accident,
applicant,
its
also
result
goes
and
conduct
against
the
of
the
applicant.
not
see
any
special
or
exceptional
it,
so
also
the
and submissions
legal
submissions.
earliest,
for
the
purpose
necessary
view
there
of
is
above
no
facts
and
exceptional
circumstances,
circumstance
in
application
dismissal.
do
not
and,
However,
see
any
hence,
substance
the
considering
same
the
in
the
deserves
verdict
of
R/CR.MA/13488/2015
CAV ORDER
paper-book
from
the
trial
Court
at
the
observations
and
discussions
in
this
at
this
stage
and
shall
not
be
of
appeal,
which
will
be
certainly
the
Criminal
the
foregoing
Misc.Application
is
reasons,
dismissed
with
above
Page 21 of 21