Dismissed

Mahesh Vasant Walke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 May 2024ABA/1311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a road-accident death case where Section 304-II IPC was added to bailable offences. The court held that driving at high speed off the tar road onto the victim prima facie showed knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, and dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahesh Vasant Walke vs the State of Maharashtra — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

906_ABA_1311_24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1311 OF 2024 Mahesh Vasant Walke … Applicant

¶3

vs.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w. Mr. Ashish Kachole and Mr. Yash Fadatare, i/b. Samay Pawar for applicant.

¶6

Mr. Mayur S. Sonavane, APP for respondent-State.

¶7

Mr. V. R. Nagargoje, Head Constable, Police Station Ranjangaon MIDC, District Pune Rural.

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 10^th JULY, 2024

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for respondent-State.

¶11

The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.0213 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024 registered at Police Station Ranjangaon MIDC, District Pune Rural for offences under Sections 279, 304-A, 323, 337, 338, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); as also Sections 184, 134 and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This Court is informed that on 30.03.2024, offence under Section 304-II of the IPC has been added.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all the offences, except subsequently added Section 304-II of the IPC, are bailable. It is submitted that even if the statement of the informant, which led to registration of FIR, is taken into consideration, at worst, a case of Section 304-A of the IPC could be made out. Since the said offence is bailable, this Court may consider granting relief in the present application.

¶13

1/2

¶14

906_ABA_1311_24.doc

¶15

On the other hand, the learned APP submits that description of the incident, as given by the informant, is enough to indicate that the applicant can be attributed with the knowledge that his act was likely to cause the death of the victim. It is further submitted that the victim suffered serious injuries, including head injuries and succumbed to death. Hence, it is submitted that this Court may not show any indulgence to the applicant.

¶16

This Court has perused the statement of the informant, leading to registration of FIR. It is specifically stated that while the victim, who was the sister of the informant, was walking on the side portion and beyond the tar road, the applicant, who was driving the vehicle in question, came at high speed and dashed the victim, who died as a consequence. It is specifically stated that the said vehicle came down from the tar road onto the side portion and hit the victim.

¶17

The description of the incident itself shows that the vehicle came down from the tar road at high speed and hit the victim. The applicant as a person driving a vehicle, had the knowledge that the vehicle has to be driven on the tar road. Since the vehicle was driven at such a speed that it left the tar road, came down and hit the victim, the act on the part of the applicant prima facie indicates that he can be attributed with the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death of the person hit by such a vehicle driven at high speed

¶18

Considering the description of the incident and the fact that the victim suffered serious injuries, including head injury, leading to her death, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for granting anticipatory bail.

¶19

The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

(MANISH PITALE, J)

¶21

PRIYAKAMBLI Digitally signedby PRIYAKAMBLIDate:2024.07.1019:07:11 +0530 Priya Kambli

¶22

2/2

Mahesh Vasant Walke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mahesh Vasant Walke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish Shyamsunder Gupta Vs Kuntadevi Pannalal Gupta

Krishna Pannalal Gupta Vs Pannalal Mevalal Gupta

Anil Narayan Gaikwad Vs Narayan Ananta Gaikwad (Deceased)

Santosh Benjamin Bhonkar vs Benjamin M Bhonkar Alias Benzamin Moses Bhonkar Alias B M Benjamin (Bh

Kalpita Surendra Boricha vs Late Chandrakant Mahadev Juvekar (Deceased)

Chandrakant Chalu Patil Vs Sharubai Chalu Patil