Delhi High Court - Orders
Gouri Mandal vs State (Gnct Delhi) on 12 March, 2024
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 1264/2023
GOURI MANDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod K.
Tiwary, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GNCT DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant,
APP for the State
alongwith SI Satish
Bhati (PS Okhla
Industrial Area)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 12.03.2024
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1656/2023
1. The present petition is filed, under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') read with Section 482 of the CrPC, inter alia, impugning the order dated 20.09.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned order'), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Crl. Appeal No. 491/2018.
2. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order, has upheld the order on conviction dated 13.07.2018, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), South-East District, Saket Districts, New Delhi, in FIR No.60/2008, registered at Police Station O.I. Estate, by which the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
This is a digitally signed order.
CRL.REV.P. 1264/2023 Page 1 of 4The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2024 at 23:28:46
3. The learned ASJ, by order on sentence dated 08.11.2023, upheld the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned MM by order on sentence dated 27.09.2018, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC and for a period of two years for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC. The petitioner was also directed to pay a fine of ₹20,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. The FIR was registered alleging that the petitioner, while driving a water tanker in a rash and negligent manner, hit the victim Lalman Yadav, which led to his death. The petitioner was charged under Section 304A of the IPC read with Section 279 of the IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction of the petitioner is solely based on the statement given by PW1/Kalika Yadav, a relative of the deceased, who is alleged to be the eye witness of the incident. He submits that even if the deposition of the PW1 is believed to be true, no case is made out against the petitioner.
6. He submits that PW1 has specifically stated in his deposition that the deceased was standing on the road with the bicycle. The deceased and PW1 had stopped so that PW1 could urinate on the wall.
7. He submits that it is not the case that the deceased had parked his bicycle on the footpath.
8. He further submits that the moment it is admitted that the bicycle was parked wrongly on a busy road, the petitioner cannot be solely held liable for the incident on account of rash and negligent driving. He submits that the case, at best, can be one of This is a digitally signed order.
CRL.REV.P. 1264/2023 Page 2 of 4The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2024 at 23:28:46 contributory negligence.
9. He submits that it is the duty of the police to make sure that a vehicle is not unnecessarily parked on a busy road as the same can lead to accident even if there is no fault of the driver.
10. He submits that the accident in the present case did not happen at a zebra crossing. He further submits that there is no reason for any person to cross a busy road without using the zebra crossing.
11. He submits that a driver is not expected to visualize in advance that a person who was standing by the road would suddenly come in front of the vehicle.
12. He submits that the petitioner has been in custody for more than five months.
13. He submits that the fine, as imposed by the learned MM, has already been paid.
14. From a perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that, prima facie, the petitioner has a good arguable case which can lead to the conviction being set aside.
15. The petition is, however, likely to take a considerable period of time before it is finally heard and decided.
16. In view of the above, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended till the pendency of the petition and petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent, on the following conditions:
a. He shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;
b. He shall under no circumstance leave the country without This is a digitally signed order.CRL.REV.P. 1264/2023 Page 3 of 4
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2024 at 23:28:47 the permission of the Court;
c. He shall appear before this Court as and when directed; d. He shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
17. The present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
CRL.REV.P. 1264/202318. List in due course.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 12, 2024 'Aman' This is a digitally signed order.
CRL.REV.P. 1264/2023 Page 4 of 4The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2024 at 23:28:47