IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14353 of 2009 AMOD KUMAR @ AMOD SINGH son of Muni singh, resident of village Yekara, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District Vaishali. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 7/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. 17 lives have been lost on account of rash and negligent driving of the Public Bus by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to kill any one and that such accident was only un-intentional and took place at the spur of the moment. Counsel also refers report of the Motor Vehicle Inspect (M.V.I.) as contained in Annexure-1 to contend that it was on account of non working of the break and thus its failure led to the accident and as such the petitioner cannot be held liable for such mechanical fault. In the opinion of this Court counsel for the petitioner cannot be permitted to make the case as light as he is intending, The fact, that the report of the M.V.I. prepared on 4.10.2008 relating to an accident which had taken place on 17.9.2008, would by itself go to show that the same was not made promptly as is required under Rule 215 (1) of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules. There is no explanation in the case diary as to why the M.V.I. Sitamarhi took 17 days time in reaching at the spot and submitting his report. Moreover the above report of M.V.I. to say the least, does not support the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, even though the M.V.I. had reported that on 2 the date of inspection i.e, on 4.10.2008 the breaks of the vehicle was not working but in Col.13 of the prescribed format while recording his specialized opinion he had categorically mentioned that such accident had not taken place on account of any mechanical fault. Such report of M.V.I. therefore would give a severe blow to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as with regard to reasons break failure as also cause of accident which would be nothing else but an error or fault on the part of the petitioner making him responsible for committing this offence which is punishable both under Section 304 A read with Section 279 I.P.C.. Counsel for the petitioner therefore is not justified in contending that the maximum punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioner would be only for a period of six months and therefore if the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 14 months, he becomes automatically entitled to be enlarged on bail. This Court cannot ignore the fact that on account of such rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, a licensed driver of a Public Transport, has led to loss of life of a large number of innocent persons apart from the passengers. In this case 17 persons sitting by the side of the road were crushed to death by the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present and accordingly his prayer for bail is hereby rejected. Since the petitioner is in custody for the last 14 months, this Court would direct the trial court to ensure that trial of the 3 petitioner is taken on expeditious basis and is concluded in the next 15 months. In the event, trial of the petitioner is not concluded in the next 15 months, the petitioner will have liberty initially to move the trial court which will record reasons for not concluding the trial, whereafter only the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)