Karnataka High Court
Dhanashekar Kandasamy vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2022
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4826 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
DHANASHEKAR KANDASAMY
S/O KANDASAMY
AGED 42 YEARS
R/AT 6/8W, KMB NAGAR
SALEM OMALURU
TAMIL NADU - 636 455.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAUSHAD PASHA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT TRAFFIC PS
BANGALORE - 560 078
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN S.C.NO.850/2022 (CR.NO.06/2022) OF KUMARASWAMY
2
LAYOUT TRAFFIC P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 337, 338, 304 OF IPC, SECTION
134(A AND B), 187 OF INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Sri Naushad Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Vishwa Murthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC. with the following prayer:
" To enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.850/2022 (Cr.No.06/2022) of Kumaraswamy Layout Traffic P.S., Bengaluru city for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 of IPC, Section 134(A & B), 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act on the file of the Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bengaluru". 3
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A Complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner herein by Sri. Manjnatha J, S/o Jogaiah with Kumaraswamy Layout Traffic Police Station on 08.01.2022 registered in Crime No.6/2022 dated for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 of IPC and Section 134(A & B), 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that on 07.01.2022 at about 9.30 p.m,. the petitioner being the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-30-BB-5477, drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner without following any of the traffic rules, and dashed against series of vehicles which were stopped near the Puravankara Apartment, Nice Road, Kanakapura Road as there were road repair work going on. In the said accident, four persons died 4 and several others injured who are inmates of the vehicles which were stopped near the said place. On registering the case, the Police investigated the mater in detail and filed charge sheet against the petitioner. Taking note of the total negligence on the part of the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that four lives have been lost in the incident, investigating agency in its wisdom is of the opinion that the act attributable to the petitioner would attract the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and not 304(A) of IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2022 and he is in custody.
5. The petitioner did approach this Court on an earlier occasion in Crl.P.No.1419/2022. This Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the criminal petition pending filing of the charge sheet. 5
6. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner again approached the District Court for grant of bail which was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court with the successful bail application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in a matter of this nature invoking Section 304 of IPC by the investigation agency is unwarranted. He also pointed out that just because there are four deaths in the incident, the police cannot invoke offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC as necessary ingredients to attract the offence of culpable homicide not amount into murder is not available in the case on hand.
8. He also pointed out that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner in colliding against the parked vehicles and having regard to the 6 place of the incident, there was no proper vision for the petitioner and addressed it as human error and therefore, sought for grant of bail.
9. Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the bail petition on the ground that there are sufficient safeguards near the place of incident to slow down the vehicles inasmuch as there were trembles on the road and if the any driver had driven the vehicle with reasonable amount of caution, the accident would not have occurred. Very fact that the lorry of the petitioner collided against the series stopped vehicles resulting in loss of four lives and several other persons, the petitioner has driven a lorry in a totally rash and negligent manner which would per se amount to culpable homicide and hence, investigation agency is justified in invoking the Section 304 of IPC in a matter of this nature and it is not a simple case of 7 road traffic accident and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition.
10. In view of the rival contentions, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. No doubt, loss of lives of four persons in the incident is an account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry of its the petitioner was the driver. The place of incident, there was a curve as could be seen from the sketch annexed along with the petition. Whether at all, it was a simple case of human error or not, cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage by holding a mini trial.
11. Expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter would definitely hamper the rights of the parties during the trial one way or the other. 8
12. Thus, resisting from holding a mini trial when a material on record is analyzed for the limited purpose of considering the grant of bail or otherwise, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the accused -petitioner in the custody is no longer warranted. It is not a case where prosecution has made out good grounds for the custodial trial. The only apprehension that the prosecution is expressing at this stage in view of the filing of the charge sheet is that the petitioner may not be available for the trial. To quell such an apprehension of the prosecution, suitable and stringent conditions can be imposed by this court while adverting the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
9
ORDER (1) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (2) The Petitioner be released on bail on executing the bond in sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two
sureties for the
like-sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
(3) The Petitioner shall attend the court
regularly.
(4) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution witnesses. (5) The Petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month on every third Sunday between 10.00 a.m., and 2.00 p.m., before the Kumaraswamy Layout Traffic Police till the conclusion of the trial.10
Violation of any of the above conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE RU