The decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offences, the role of the accused, and the gravity of the allegations in granting regular bail.

ORDER :

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being I-C.R. No. 11200007220372 of 2022 registered with Bhilad Police Station, District-Valsad for offence under Sections 337, 304 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

4. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

6. This Court has considered following aspects:

(a) The applicant is in jail since 16th March, 2022.

(b) Investigation is almost over, however charge-sheet is yet not filed.

(c) The applicant is an employee and working as Project Manager in M/s. Desai Constructions Private Limited.

(d) Admittedly, the present applicant was not present at the time of alleged incident nor he was driving Eicher vehicle being Registration No. GJ-15-YY-8283 which fell down on the labourers doing work of footing. The said Eicher vehicle was driven by the driver and because of his negligence, parked on the edge of the pit in which labourers were doing footing work. Thus, it is not even the case that vehicle was negligently driven and parked by the present applicant.

(e) Prima-facie, offence under Section 304, IPC, is not made out against the present applicant. So as to constitute the offence under Section 304, IPC, the basic ingredient is an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that by such act, it is likely to cause death. In the instant case, basic ingredient of intention is not made out and even the act of parking Eicher vehicle also cannot be attributed to the present applicant.

(f) The applicant appears to have been arraigned as an accused because he is a Project Manager. Admittedly, the construction work was going on at the site in the night hours as per the normal rules and regulations and the present applicant was not present at the site being night hours.

(g) The applicant is in jail since 16th March, 2022 and thereby no further custodial interrogation is required any more as no recovery and/or discovery be made from the present applicant and thereby the applicant may not be required to be kept behind bars during the pendency of the trial.

(h) Considering the pendency of cases in the trial courts, trial is not likely to be over within near future. Thus, the present applicant may not be required in jail during the pendency of the trial.

(i) In view of the aforesaid, prima facie, it is a case of an unfortunate accident and more particularly the present applicant being Project Manager cannot be attributed any role that too with any intention.

(j) In addition to the aforesaid, it is reported that the company has already paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the family of deceased immediately and also undertook to pay statutory obligations in the Employees’ Compensation Act and also any other statutory compensation.

(k) Learned senior advocate Mr.Unwalla has further assured this Court that over and above Rs. 3,00,000/- and other statutory obligations, the company shall further pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- immediately to the family of the deceased.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the r