1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3500 of 2009 Ravindra v State of Maharashtra ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr R.M. Daga, Adv for applicant Mr Adgokar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 7th January 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned APP for State at length. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant had moved for discharge before the trial Court, but that application was rejected. As against that order, he has filed Revision Application No. 211 of 09 which has been admitted by this Court and proceedings before the trial Court have been stayed. He pointed out another development, in that, parents of victim have filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondia for compensation on account of accidental death of victim Sapna Rahate. Learned counsel further points out that initially when one Meenakshi lodged oral report with Police Station, Keshori, she stated having witnessed the accident and that Ravindra Shende had fled away with his tractor. According to her, because wheel of the tractor went over the head of Sapna, she suffered grievous injury and death as a result of accident. Learned counsel for applicant submits that assuming that Criminal Revision Application No. 211 of 2009 fails, since trial has been presently stayed, trial would take longer time looking to the pendency of 2 revision applications before this Court. 2. Learned APP opposed the application and strenuously contended that it is a case of murder and that fact of filing of claim petition by parents of Sushma should not weigh with the Court. He prayed for dismissal of application. 3. Having considered the submissions at the bar, it does appear that as a result of stay to further proceedings in trial, trial will not be disposed of in near future. There is also substance in the submission of learned counsel for applicant that had it been a murder case, parents of victim would not have moved for compensation on account of fatal accident. Statement of Meenakshi who is first informant indicates that it was an accident caused by tractor and that the driver had fled away with tractor after dashing victim and causing accident. Under these circumstances, it is difficult at this stage to say that applicant was involved in the offence of murder. Of course, it will be for the trial Court to record evidence, if trial is held, and appreciate facts to e brought on record. In my opinion, prima facie case is made out for grant of bail. Hence, I am inclined to grant conditional bail to the applicant. 4. Applicant is directed to be released on bail in Crime No. 18/2008 registered with Police Station, Keshori, District Gondia under Sections 302, 354, 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 134, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act upon his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner and shall attend each date of hearing in the trial. Applicant shall leave his permanent address along with telephone/cell phone number, if any, with the Investigating 3 Officer as also with the trial Court and shall communicate change therein, if any, in future. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE joshi