Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) SINCE, both the aforesaid criminal petitions arise out and pertain to order dated 9 January, 2009 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby, petitions filed by the revisionists under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. were dismissed, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions succinctly stated are: - That on 14 December, 2008, the students of Institute of Business and Bio - Science, Kota, came on tour and after visiting Behrod arrived at Jaipur on 15 December, 2008. Having parked the Bus way side of the road near Gandhi Nagar crossing, when the students at 10:45 p.m. were in process of crossing the road through Zebra lines to reach at restaurant situated on Tonk Road, one car of black colour, came at a fast speed rashly and negligently and caused violent hit and run accident resulting in the death of Kr. Babita Choudhary and injuries to Kumari Gauri, Kumari Maninder Kaur, Kumari Shaifali and Mukesh. THE number of VOLKSWAGEN Car was RJ -14 CF 5975. THE injured girls were taken to S.M.S. Hospital in Ambulance where Kumari Babita was declared dead by the Doctors. THE S.H.O. police station Accident, (East), sent the report of this accident to police station Gandhi Nagar where FIR No. 580/08 came to be registered in the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 -A of IPC and the investigation commenced. It is also, alleged that having received the information of the accident, both S.H.O. police station Accident (East) and S.H.O. police station, Gandhi Nagar chased the vehicle which had caused this accident. The S.H.O. intercepted the vehicle NO. RJ 14 CF 5975 and the driver of the vehicle Vijit Singh S/o. Prithvi Singh was taken into custody and produced for medical examination before the Medical Jurist, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur as he was found drunk. The samples of blood and urine were taken by the Medical Jurist and duly sent for chemical examination to FSL, Jaipur. Thereafter, at 5.00 a.m., the accused respondent Vijit Singh was released on bail by the Investigating Officer on account of all the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 -A of IPC being bailable. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., collected the relevant material and the FSL report pertaining to the blood and urine samples of the respondent. The FSL report gave a positive test to 92.00mg/100ml quantity of Ethyl Alcohol in the blood samples and 126.50mg/100ml quantity of Ethyl Alcohol in the urine of accused Vijit Singh. After receiving the FSL report with regard to urine and blood samples of the respondent, and recording the statements of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer found that the offence under Section 304 of IPC was established instead of Section 304 -A of IPC and thereafter he apprised the senior police officers with this development. The Investigating Officer finally formed an opinion that the offences under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304 of IPC and Section 134/187, 185 of Motor Vehicle Act were fully established against the respondent Vijit Singh. Since the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 -A of IPC and Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicle Act were bailable. The Investigating Officer released the respondent Vijit Singh on bail on furnishing bail bonds on 16 December, 2008 itself. The offence under Section 304 of IPC being of grave nature and non -bailable, the revisionists applied for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who dismissed the same on 9 January, 2009. The revisionist felt aggrieved with this impugned orders and hence these revisions. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as also the learned A.A.G. for the State, and scanned the relevant material available on record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist have craved the cancellation of bail on the following grounds: - (i) That at the initial stage, the respondent Vijit Singh was released on bail on the ground that the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 -A of IPC are bailable. Later on having collected the material evidence during investigation, it was revealed that the offence under Section 304 of IPC was made out which were graver in nature and non -bailable; (ii) That the bail granted by the police is subjected to be cancelled if later on a graver and non -bailable offence is disclosed; (iii) That the accused respondent after committing the accident fled from the spot. When he was chased and tried to be intercepted, he again hit the vehicle and fled, which clearly indicates that the accused committed offence under Section 304 of IPC and not under Section 304 -A of IPC; (iv) That if a person drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and subsequently causes hit and run accident, it can safely be gathered that he had a knowledge that from his act the death of a person could be caused. Therefore, such act of the accused is punishable under Section 304 of IPC; (v) That, thereafter on being chased by an eye -witness Abhimanyu Swami, who tried to stop the accused but the accused -respondent having the knowledge and being aware of his illegal act, hit Abhimanyu Swami as well and fled from there. His post accident conduct of the respondent clearly establishes that the respondent was able to see in the sufficient light available at the crossing that a group of 60 students was moving at the Zebra crossing to cross the road and having knowledge that his act of hitting these students could cause the death of anyone, did not stop the car and on the contrary hit the students and fled from there. He made no efforts to stop the car and thus, his act is punishable under Section 304 of IPC; At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondent Vijit Singh assailed the maintainability of these revision petitions on the ground that the impugned order dated 9 January, 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur is an interlocutory order and a revision against such interlocutory order is barred under Sub -section 2 of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. He has further canvassed that the order summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of pending proceedings are the interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. In support of this argument, he relied upon AIR 1977 Cr.L.J. 1891; 1977 Cr.L.J. 471; 1983 Cr.L.J. 1590; 1988 Cr.L.J. 1434; 1994(2) Crimes 449; 1995 Cr.L.J. 556; 1995 Cr.L.J. 2523; 1999 (4) Crimes 461 and 1999 Cr.L.J. 3806.;