1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 514/2011 (APPA) IN Criminal Appeal No. 383/2011 Rajkumar Natthu Shinde ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Washim, District Washim Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. D. Chande, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. C. N. Adgokar, A.P.P. for the non-applicant CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 19.9.2011. 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Chande, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. C. N. Adgokar, learned A.P.P. for the non- applicant. 2. The applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months and for offence punishable under Section 192 of M.V. Act, 1988 to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The case of the prosecution was that the applicant was the driver of the vehicle no. MH-28/H-1255, and had loaded 2 more passengers than it's legal capacity 5+1 and, therefore, had knowledge that the death of those passengers could occur. The accident took place as a result of which 18 passengers died and one boy was seriously injured. 4. From the nature of the allegation and the nature of the evidence on record, first of all there is an arguable case whether the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code or where it is offence of causing death due to rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide i.e. death on account of negligence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is further seen that as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-8), none of the witnesses had disclosed the name of the driver and some of them had stated that they can identify the driver. It is seen that no test identification parade was conducted. There is, therefore, arguable case regarding the identification of the accused as driver of the said vehicle. 6. It is seen that the accused was on bail during trial from 28/03/2006 till 29/07/2011 which is the date of the judgment and there is no allegation that he misused his liberty. The applicant is the permanent resident of Alhada, Washim. In my view, this is a fit 3 case for suspension of the substantive sentence of the imprisonment and release on bail. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has already deposited the fine amount of Rs. 9,000/-, and he has also shown receipt of the same to this Court. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. 8. Impugned sentence of imprisonment is suspended until the final disposal of the case. 9. The applicant shall be released on bail upon execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount on the condition that either he or his advocate on record shall attend all the dates of hearing before this Court. Hamdast granted. JUDGE Punde.