Gian Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 270 of 2011 dated 24.10.2011 registered at Police Station, Sadar Bilaspur, u/s 304 (ii) IPC.

It has been stated that the petitioner has been arrested by the police in the above case. The police official registered the case against the petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A IPC on 24.10.2011 but after a gap of 37 days, the police called the petitioner to the Police Station and arrested him for offence punishable u/s 304 (ii) IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 14.12.2011. The learned Sessions Judge has wrongly dismissed the bail application of the petitioner.

The police has changed the original version given in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses. A case u/s 279, 304-A IPC has been wrongly converted into a case u/s 304(ii) IPC. The accident took place due to mechanical failure of the vehicle and accident is not attributable to the petitioner.

The petitioner is the only bread earner of the family consisting of old parents, two school going sons, a daughter whose marriage has been fixed on 12.3.2012. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The bail application has been opposed by filing status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the complaint of Sunil Kumar, Home Guard. It has been stated that on 24.10.2011 he boarded the HRTC bus enroute Bilaspur to Bandla near Police Station Sadar. The driver of the bus stopped the bus at Danoh Kunala and told the passengers that some faults have crept in the bus. The passengers alighted from the bus. The driver demanded another bus from HRTC Workshop, Bilaspur which reached Danoh Kunala curve within 35 minutes. The conductor of the faulty bus told the passengers to board the bus.

The complainant has stated that he along with other passengers sat in the bus and the driver of the bus was on his seat, the bus was in starting position. The driver attempted to drive the bus but it moved backwards and rolled down the hill to a depth of 100 meters. The accident took place due to negligence of the bus driver, on this case has been registered.

It has been stated that during investigation, the statements of Suman Kumar and Prem Lal were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. In the accident 31 persons have died and 22 received serious injuries. The first bus was being driven by Rajender Kumar which developed fault at Danoh Kunala curve. On requisition, the second bus was sent which was driven by petitioner and was stopped by petitioner at Danoh Kunala. The bus was kept in start position, the driver alighted from the bus and passengers started boarding the bus. The bus was stopped on a gradient and no stopper was placed behind the tyres of the bus.

The bus with the load of the passengers started moving backward and rolled down killing many persons and injuring several others. The mechanical examination of the bus revealed that it was kept in start position and neutral, the brakes of the bus were functional. The bus driver was standing outside the bus at the time of the accident. It is stated that during investigation Sections 279, 304-A IPC were deleted and Section 304 (ii) IPC was added. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the police file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigating agency has completely changed the complexion of the case. The first version which has come in the statement of complainant u/s 154 Cr.P.C. indicates that the driver of the ill-fated bus was on the seat, the bus started moving backwards and rolled down. However, during investigation, the investigating agency has made out a case that driver was not on the seat of the bus which started moving backward due to the load of the passengers and rolled down. He has stated that no doubt several persons have died in the accident but petitioner is not at all fault for the accident. The marriage of the daughter of the petitioner is fixed on 12.3.2012. The petitioner was on bail but in view of the addition of Section 304 (ii) IPC he has been arrested. It has been stated that no purpose will be served in detaining the petitioner for indefinite period. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that it has come in the investigation that the petitioner has committed offence punishable u/s 304 IPC and, therefore, he has been rightly denied bail by the learned Sessions Judge.

I have considered the rival submissions. In the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. which is the first version the allegations are that the driver was on the seat and the ill-fated bus was full of passengers. The bus was in starting position but it started moving backwards and rolled down. The petitioner was granted bail but lateron during further investigation, the investigating agency found that instead of Sections 279, 304-A IPC, the offence is covered u/s 304 (ii) IPC. The petitioner was arrested, the bail application filed by him was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

It will come out during trial whether the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A IPC or u/s 304 (ii) IPC is made out or not. There is no denial of the fact that initially the case was registered under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. In the status report no motive has been attributed to the complainant who lodged the report. The petitioner was on bail in the beginning but was arrested on addition of Section 304 (ii) IPC. The trial of the case will take some time. No purpose will be served for detaining the petitioner for indefinite period in the jail. The marriage of the daughter of the petitioner has already been fixed on 12.3.2012. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C.

In view of above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 270 of 2011 dated 24.10.2011 registered at Police Station, Sadar Bilaspur, u/s 304 (ii) IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Bilaspur with the condition that the petitioner shall not overawe or influence the prosecution witnesses nor shall tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.