SIDHARTH GROVER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of bail in case FIR No.427/2013 registered under Sections 323/304-II IPC & Sections 155, 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act at PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi.

(2.) The FIR came to be registered on the complaint of one Shri Dushyant, a driver by profession, who had stated that in the morning of 5.9.2013, he had driven down to Phoolwati Jain Charitable Trust Hospital in Safdarjung Development Area with Smt. Sushila Tewatia and her daughter, Ms. Annu Kundu and parked his car outside the hospital compound. When the aforesaid ladies came out of the hospital and stopped to purchase some fruits from a nearby fruit cart at about 11.45 AM, the petitioner, who was driving a Swift Dezire car in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, came from the wrong side of the road and hit a stationary car, two cyclists and a motorcycle standing near the entrance of the hospital and then colluded with the fruit cart. The motorcycle rider and the pillion rider fell down as a result of the impact of the car. Thereafter, the car had forcefully hit the fruit cart where the complainant was standing along with the aforesaid two ladies and hit all three of them. While Ms. Annu Kundu got entangled with the car and was dragged for quite a distance, the complainant and Smt. Sushila Tewatia were thrown at a distance. Finally, when the car came to a halt, the public in the vicinity apprehended the petitioner, called the police and handed him over. The injured persons were taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment, the car was seized by the police and the FIR was registered on the same day. The petitioner was arrested two days later, on 7.9.2013.

(3.) Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner stated that initially, the FIR had been registered by the police under Sections 279/337 IPC, but later on, provisions of Section 304 Part-II IPC were added. He submitted that it was while trying to avoid hitting a stray dog that had suddenly come in front of his car, that the petitioner had lost control of the car, and resultantly, the front tyre had burst and caused the accident. The court was informed that the petitioner did not try to flee from the scene of the accident and had alighted from the car to try and help the injured, but he was prevented from doing so by the public that had gathered on the spot. Learned counsel stated that as the investigation of the case has been concluded and the charge-sheet filed, there is no compelling reason to continue the detention of the petitioner in judicial custody.