Gujarat High Court
Ketankumar Ramanbhai Padhiyar vs State Of Gujarat on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/22611/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 22611 of 2022
==========================================================
KETANKUMAR RAMANBHAI PADHIYAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ND NANAVATY, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR NR KODEKAR(5020) for the
Applicant
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 05/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this successive bail application, the applicant, Ketan
Padhiyar - sole accused of the case, is seeking regular bail in
connection with FIR being CR. No. 11215025220211 of 2022
registered with Sojitra Police Station, Anand for the offences
punishable under Section 279, 304, 337 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Section 177, 184 and 234(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act and
Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present application are
that, the alleged incident took place on 11.08.2022 near Dali Bus
Stand, Sojitra Tarapur Road, Dist.: Anand. According to prosecution
case, due to collusion of passenger rickshaw having registration No.
GJ-1-BZ- 4880 and Kia Car bearing registration No. GJ-23-CD-
4404 and one Bike, 7 persons have been died and others sustained
grievous injuries. The applicant herein was in the root cause of the
R/CR.MA/22611/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023
alleged incident, as at relevant time, he was driving Kia car under
the influence of alcohol. It is alleged that, the applicant was driving
his car in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life
with intention to cause death of the passenger rickshaw, as a result, 7
persons have been died and others have sustained bodily injuries.
3. The applicant herein has been apprehended on 22.08.2022. During
the course of investigation, the IO obtained the medical certificate to
establish that the applicant was driving vehicle under the influence
of alcohol. After recording the statement of witnesses and other
materials, the chargesheet for the offences as referred above came to
be filed on 21.10.2022. The bail application after filing the
chargesheet came to be rejected by the court concerned.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the Sessions Court, the instant
application under Section 439 has been filed seeking regular bail.
5. This Court has heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavaty
assisted by Mr. N.R. Kodekar, learned advocate appearing for and
on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
6. Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, it is
unfortunate that, 7 persons have lost their lives due to the alleged
accident. As per the prosecution case, 3 vehicles were involved in
the alleged accident and therefore, the applicant cannot be held
solely responsible for the alleged incident. The applicant is
practicing Advocate and after filing the chargesheet, the further
R/CR.MA/22611/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023
custody of the applicant is not necessary and when trial would take
considerable time, keeping the applicant behind the bar would not
serve any further purpose.
7. Mr. Nanavaty, learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted
that it is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to
jail is an exceptional and refusal of bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. It is not alleged that, if the bail is granted, the
applicant will flee from justice or he may tamper with the
prosecution witnesses. The applicant is easily available at the time of
trial. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, delivered in the
case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I, (2012) 1 SCC 40, it is submitted
that, merely because of 7 persons died in the alleged accident, would
not be a ground to refuse the bail.
8. He would urge that Section 304 of the IPC has been wrongly
invoked by the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that the
applicant caused death by rash and negligent act. There is no
intention to cause death or knowledge that the act done will in all
probability results into multiple death. Thus, prima-facie, the
ingredients of Section 304A are attracted.
9. Lastly, he would urged that, the applicant having a responsibility to
feed his family and when he is easily available at the time of trial
and he having no any past antecedents of like nature, the case is
made out to exercised judicial discretion in favour of the applicant.
R/CR.MA/22611/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023
10. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent State vehemently opposed the plea of the bail and
contended that, at relevant time, the applicant was under the
influence of alcohol and had caused the alleged act of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, as a result, 7 persons have lost
their lives and others have suffered grievous injuries. The offence
committed is affecting society at large and it cannot simply termed
as 'an accident'. Thus, therefore, he submitted that, when prima-
facie case is made out and offence is grave, the court may not
enlarge the accused on bail.
11. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused
the material placed on record in the form of chargesheet.
12. It is settled position of law that the determination of whether a case
is fit for grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors
amongst which the nature of the offence, the severity of punishment
and a prima-facie view of the involvement of the accused are
important. No straight jacket formula exists for court to access an
application for bail to grant or rejection of bail and to large extent, it
depends on the facts and circumstances of particular case.
13. On the facts on hand, it prima-facie, established that at relevant time,
the applicant was driving his Kia Car under the influence of alcohol
and same is supported by the medical evidence. The witnesses have
categorically stated the manner in which the alleged act was done by
the applicant herein. In the alleged incident 7 persons have been died
and others have serious grievous injuries. In such circumstances,
R/CR.MA/22611/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023
there is reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has
committed the alleged offence, whereby, 7 persons lost their lives.
The charge against the applicant is serious and affecting the society
at large. It is profitable to refer the observations of the Apex Court
while dealing with the case of road accident. The Apex Court in the
case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182,
while dealing with the issue of principles of sentencing, held that,
the court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road
accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been
totally rash and negligent. It is further held that, driving in a drunken
state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful
adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no
discipline of law has come to the center stage and such developing
of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in a orderly society. In para-
18 of the judgment, the Apex Court, observed that, "India has a
disreputable record of road accidents. There is non-challant attitude
amongst the drivers. They feel that, they are the "Emperors of all
they survey ". Drunkenness contributes to careless driving were the
other people will come at their prey.
14. Thus, therefore, having regard to the circumstances as discussed
hereinabove and considering the nature and gravity of the offence
and prima-facie involvement of the applicant herein in the offence,
this Court do not incline to grant bail. However, considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned trail
Court, before whom the case is pending, shall make its endavour to
complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 1
R/CR.MA/22611/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023
year from the receipt of this order, in accordance with law.
15. In the result, present application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
P.S. JOSHI
