1 (Cri appln 348 in rev. appln 485 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.348 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2010 Prakash R. Raut ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ****** Mr. Prakash Naik for the Applicant Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 27TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for bail filed by the Applicant. The Applicant was convicted by the Learned JMFC, Dahahnu for the offence punishable under sections 304A, 279 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- , in 2 (Cri appln 348 in rev. appln 485 of 2010) default, to suffer R.I. for six months' and for the offence under sections 279 and 184, he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for 45 days. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Applicant was driving his rickshaw on the road and he gave a dash to the victim girl, who was 5 years of age and as a result of which, she succumbed to the injury and died. 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the prosecution witnesses have improved their case. Initially, in the first information report, it is mentioned that the victim girl was crossing the road and at that time the rickshaw gave a dash. He however, submitted that all the witnesses were trying to improve the case by saying that the girl was standing near the footpath and, thereafter, the accused was driving his rickshaw in rash and negligent manner and gave a dash to her. He invited my attention to the statement of the witnesses. It is also submitted that a suggestion has been given by the learned Counsel for the accused that there was another motor cycle which was also driven in by opposite direction and the said motor cycle first gave a dash to 3 (Cri appln 348 in rev. appln 485 of 2010) the said victim girl and then the rickshaw, as a result of which the Applicant was also injured in the said incident. It is submitted that though the incident has taken place on 16th December, 2002, the FIR was registered on 21st December, 2002 and the spot panchanama was also prepared on 17th December, 2002. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submitted that the road was adjacent to the school and in view of the traffic sign, the drivers have to drive their vehicles slowly on such a road. In spite of that, the Applicant was driving in rash and negligent manner at a high speed. She invited my attention to the spot panchanama which indicate that the tier marks were there upto a distance of 15 fts. 6. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant. It is true that the prosecution witnesses have tried to improve their case. Since none of them have stated in the statement before the police that the victim girl was standing on the road and this contradiction has been brought on record. However, the fact remains that since the road is adjacent 4 (Cri appln 348 in rev. appln 485 of 2010) to the school, it was incumbent on the Applicant to drive his vehicle slowly on such a road which is one of the statutory requirement, being a licence driver, he is expected to know these regulations. Whenever, any traffic signs are put up on the road, there is specific connotation which the licence driver is expected to know and to comply with the said traffic rules. In case while driving near the hospital horn is not permissible, so also near the school a driver is expected to bear in mind the children are crossing the road and, therefore, he supposed to drive slowly. The spot panchnama indicates that the brake marks were seen at a distance of about 12 to 15 fts. which itself indicates that the Applicant was driving in a high speed and could not control his vehicle. Even assuming that the girl was crossing the road, the driver ought not to have driven his vehicle in such a manner that he could not stop the vehicle immediately on seeing the girl. 7. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant. In the present case, the Applicant has been convicted by the Trial Court and his conviction has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The revisional 5 (Cri appln 348 in rev. appln 485 of 2010) jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. It was also urged that the offence under section 304-A is a bailable offence and he was on bail through out the trial and also during the appeal period. In my view, even though, it is a bailable offence, upon conviction by the Trial Court and confirmation of sentence by the Lower Appellate Court, prima facie the offence against the Applicant is established and, therefore, merely because the offence is bailable after conviction, it is not necessary that in each and every case, the Applicant should be released on bail. 8. Under these circumstances, the application for bail is rejected. Revision Application, however, is admitted. Place the revision application for final disposal on 25th November, 2010. The Applicant is permitted to file a private paper book. Call for the record and proceedings. 9. It is clarified that the observations made by this Court while deciding the bail application are of prima facie in nature. (V.M. KANADE J.)