1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.657 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.665 OF 2009 Shabbir Yunus Mulani ...Applicant (Orig. Accused) Vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Kedar Patil, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S.R.Shinde, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.This application is for bail. The accused, who is in custody, has been convicted for an offence committed under Section 304A of the I.P.C. The case of rash and negligent driving is seen to have been made out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. 2.The evidence has shown that there was a stationary truck. The accused was coming in a milk tanker. He had a person sitting beside him who was a Cleaner or 2 Labourer. Another truck came from the opposite side. The accused collided with the stationary truck. It is stated that the truck had no light. The accident took place on a slope. The accused was blinded by the light of the oncoming vehicle. 3.However, the fact remains that the accused has collided against a stationary vehicle. The Advocate of the accused relied upon the cross examination of P.W.2 who was another person in his own vehicle/tempo. The cross examination has shown that the vehicle was coming in slow speed. The cross examination further shows the other aspects of the extent of the scene of the incident. If the tempo/tanker was coming in slow speed, the accident would have been averted even upon the light of the other vehicle being reflected in the eyes of the driver. The driver had no need to miss control, if he was in slow speed. A reading of this very cross examination shows that the speed was not slow enough. The accused was personally responsible for the speed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not call for grant of bail. However, if the accused deposits some amount which could be paid by way of compensation to the mother of the deceased, who is his only heir, the accused may be granted his liberty pending the Appeal. 3 4.I have been shown the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara which has granted Rs.1,36,500/- to the mother of the deceased, which is directed to be paid by the Insurance Company as the liability of the owner of the tempo/tanker. The tortuous liability is accordingly adjudicated upon. However, the liability for the criminal act remains. For granting bail to the accused for that criminal act further reasonable amount of compensation based upon the facts of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the compensation given thereunder would be required to be considered. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R 1. Upon the accused depositing in Court Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for his act to the mother of the deceased, the accused shall be released on bail without any further security and on his personal bond. 2. The amount shall be deposited in this Court. 3. Notice of deposit shall be given to the mother of the deceased who is the Petitioner in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara at the address mentioned in the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the Advocate of the applicant by 4 registered post and U.P.C. 4. The mother of the deceased shall be entitled to withdraw that amount upon deposit. 5. Advocate for the applicant shall send a copy of this order also to the mother of the deceased. 6. The application disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)