The applicant was inebriated at the time of
incident. It was a dash by his vehicle to the scooty of
the deceased resulted into the death of two persons and
severely injured one child. Thus the offence ought to
have been hit and run by a drunk person within ambit
of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The
investigating officers have not chosen to add this
offence and added Section 304A and 279 of Indian
Penal Code in order to extend helping hand to accused
to release him on bail. {Para 17}
18. However learned D.G.P. as well as informant have
brought to the notice of this Court all these intentional
lapses by the investigating agency as such, this Court
cannot be act as a mute spectator to see the foul play by
the investigating agency. Thus the judicial activism
comes into play and the intervention by the court is the
ultimate requirement of it. On face of record in the
light of submission, the prima facie case is within ambit
of Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.
19. In addition after the incident, the informant has
chosen to take the photographs as well as videos of the
incident. The applicant got annoyed and slapped to the
informant on his check and caught hold his collar. Thus
the subsequent conduct of this applicant speaks of his
arrogance toward the police officer on duty.”
8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Ponda appearing for Applicant,
however, tried to explain the behaviour of the Applicant on the
ground that he is under medication on the ground of anxiety since
the year 2010 when his elder brother met with an accident in the
year 2010. It is tried to impress upon the Court that he was not intoxicated but due to anxiety he behaved in different manner. It is further argued that there is no evidence available on record to show that he was inebriated as no blood sample was taken.
9. The said contentions cannot be considered considering the seriousness of the offence and overall conduct and behavior of the Applicant. Moreover, it can be seen that how the Applicant is influential which he appeared to have used after the incidence and because of which in presence of police he could flee away and which is the reason for not having blood sample of the Applicant. Thus, in this matter, benefit of the fact that blood sample was not taken, cannot be given to such person.
11. In view of the above referred observations, there is every
likelihood that if the Applicant is released on bail, he may tamper
with the prosecution evidence and pressurize the witnesses. Thus, I
am not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly the application is rejected.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3412 OF 2024
Jay Chandrahas Gharat Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : ANIL S.KILOR, J.
DATE : 25th October 2024
Print Page