J. K. Mehra ( 1 ) I have heard tile parties. Brief facts of case are that on 5. 6. 84, Harish Anand, the complainant alongwith his friend Ashok Kumar, the deceased was going to Kashmere Gate from Rohtak Road via Mori Gate on two wheeler scooter bearing No. DEM 5929. The complainant was driving the scooter and his friend Ashok Kumar Was sitting on pillion. At about 5. 36 p. m. when they turned towards Mori Gate after creesing the Mori Gate round about, one bus bearing No. DEF 2927 which was driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner at fast speed, hit the scooter from behind. The front side of the bus hit the scooter. As a consequence of impact, the complainant and the scooter fell down on the left side and Ashok Kumar fell down on the right side. Left front wheel of the bus passed over the head of Ashok Kumar and as the driver did not stop the bus intanuy, the left rear wheel of the bus passed over his neck. The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is that on 26. 5. 84 at about 5. 30 p. m. , the petitioner while driving the bus No. DEP 2927 rashly and negligently hit the scooter bearing No. DEM 5929 driven by Harish Anand, the complainant near Mori Gate Chambary and this caused simple injurie s to the complainant and caused death of Ashok Kumar and he is guilty of committing an offence punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A, IPC. ( 2 ) THE Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 304 and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000. 00 in default of fine further simple imprisonment for one month. The proceeding in this connection have gone on for more than 12 years. The petitioner, who at the time of incident was 23 years old, is now 35 years old and has faced the trial, which had been going for such a long period. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that the order of conviction as well as sentence was announced on the same date which has been held to be contrary to the letter and spirit of law. However, after some arguments. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he prays for leniency and will not press this preliminary objection. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that the order of conviction as well as sentence was announced on the same date which has been held to be contrary to the letter and spirit of law. However, after some arguments. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he prays for leniency and will not press this preliminary objection. ( 4 ) KEEPING the entire record, the facts of the case and the young age of the petitioner in view and also bearing in mind that he will have to rehabilitate himself in life again, I think that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is released under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and instead of upholding the sentence or sentencing him, it is directed that he be released on his entering into a bond of Rs. 10,000. 00 with one surety of the like amount, to appear and receive sentence, when called upon during the period of one year from the date of release and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The bond be furnished before the CMM/duty Magistrate. This petition and the application are disposed of in the above terms.