DEVESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fir No. 556/2018 was registered at PS Rajouri Garden on 9th September, 2018 on the complaint of Ram Singh who stated that he was working at Monu Tea Shop near ESI Hospital,. On 9th September, 2018 at around 4.30 AM in the morning he was sitting on the footpath having a cigarette/ bidi at Ring Road towards ESI Hospital side, Bali Nagar Cut. On the same footpath Shukla, Manoj and Noora were sleeping. In the meantime a white colour car came at a high speed from Punjabi Bagh side. The driver of the said car was drunk and rammed the car over the footpath. The said car after hitting tree turned upside down due to which all four of them got injured. The complainant took help of people around and turned the car when he saw Shukla and Noora were not having any movement in their body. The driver of the said car was drunk and the people around him questioned him as to how he was driving the car in such a manner, to which he answered that these dirty people sleep on the footpaths to be killed, and he would clear the same. The name of the driver of the car was revealed as Devesh Kumar S/o R.L. Kumar who did not possess a driving license. An ambulance took all four of them to ESI Hospital where Noora and Shukla were declared brought dead by the doctors and complainant and Manoj were given treatment. He stated that the driver of the car had knowingly after being drunk drove the car in a wrong manner killing two people and injuring two other people thus action be taken against him.

(2.) The petitioner who was driving the said vehicle without the driving license was arrested on the same day i.e. 9th September, 2018 and is in custody since then. Petitioner filed an application seeking bail before the learned Trial Court on 30th October, 2018 on merits which was posted for hearing on 13th November, 2018, when besides the merit the petitioner urged the additional ground that the petitioner is entitled to default bail as chargesheet had not been filed in the case. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application both on merits and also on the additional grounds holding that at this stage the Court cannot form any opinion whether the petitioner will be convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-I or Section 304-II or any lesser offence. Offence under Section 304-I being punishable up to life imprisonment and 90 days from the date of arrest having not elapsed, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the face of allegations in the FIR it cannot be held that the petitioner committed the offence with any intention and at best knowledge can be attributed to him. Thus, the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner would fall under Section 304-II which is punishable up to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Hence, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam, 2017 15 SCC 67 the petitioner would be entitled to default bail. He also relies upon the decisions reported as Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 2 SCC 648; State Vs. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012 8 SCC 450 and Girishbhai Arunbhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 4 GLR 3344 to contend that on the face of it only an offence punishable under Section 304-II is made out and as charge-sheet was not filed within the period of 60 days, he is entitled to bail.