1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3089/2009 (Ravindra Hiralal Shende vs. State of Maharashtra ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr R M Daga Adv.for applicant Mr Anup Parihar , APP for Respondent C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 4th September, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, at length. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in respect of Crime No. 18/2008 reported at Keshori Police Station, Gondia on 23.10.2008. Initially, the offence was registered by police under section 279 read with sections 304-A of the IPC and sections 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the course of investigation, it appears that statement of one Pooja Nilkanth Mendhe was also recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. Supplementary statement of one Meenakshi was also recorded, as also the statements of other alleged eye witnesses. The material collected during the investigation indicate that deceased Sapna Rahate was going on her bicycle on 23rd October, 2008 at about 9.30 a.m. so as to appear in the examination, along with her girl friends who were also riding bicycles. It is alleged that the applicant-Ravindra Shende had stopped the tractor and had held hand of deceased Sapna. She had resisted and freed her hands from Ravindra and started proceeding ahead on her bicycle. At that time, Ravindra who was driving the tractor, dashed her bicycle deliberately and, as a result, Sapna was killed in the incident. Thus, in the course of investigation, instead of accidental death, provisions of homicidal death were applied. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the parents of the deceased had moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondia, claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh, with interest, etc. and, as such, it 2 is a case of accidental death. 4. I have perused the statements of alleged eye witnesses to the incident as also statement of Pooja Nilkanth Mendhe recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. Prima facie, it appears that Ravindra was driving the tractor before the incident and had held hands of the deceased Sapna ; whereas she had called her girl friend Meenakshi for help as Ravindra held her hands. Thereafter, while she proceeded ahead, Ravidnra had dashed against her bicycle, drove the tractor in the reverse and ran away from the spot of the incident. The statements of eye witnesses, namely, Shiraj Pathan, Akhilkhan which were recorded in the course of investigation also indicate that Ravindra had driven the tractor and went ahead to dash the bicycle. The material indicates that applicant drove the tractor in reverse and ran away from the incident, do prima facie indicate ground to believe his involvement and homicidal death of Sapna. Under these circumstances, I think, bail application by this applicant was rightly rejected by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia as police authorities in the course of investigation registered offence u/s 302 IPC. The application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by parents of the deceased was filed on the basis of what they came to know regarding the incident and their impression about it. However, considering the material collected during the course of investigation, if released on bail the applicant may in view of the possibility of long sentence of imprisonment, may tamper with the evidence. Hence I am not inclined to grant bail. Bail Application is rejected. JUDGE. sahare