JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Criminal Procedure Code) seeks bail during trial in case FIR No. 345 dated 9.8.2003 registered under Sections 279/337/427/304-A Indian Penal Code at Police State Assandh, District Karnal. The allegations in the FIR disclosed that on 9.8.2003 the complainant along with various other persons had gone to attend the Bhog ceremony of his aunt (Chachi) Pritam Kaur. After the Bhog ceremony, the complainant along with others were coming in Maruti car No. HR-06C-8682 from Deh to Karnal. Another car No. HR-038-9279 was also carrying certain other relatives of the complainant. At about 4.00 P.M. in the evening when they reached the Bus Stand Uplana, the offending Bus bearing No. HR-05-PA-0118 which was being driven by Chanan Singh petitioner son of Surain Singh was coming at a very high speed. The petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and without using the horn came from the wrong side and hit straight with car No. HR-03B-9279 from its back. As a result thereof, Swaran Singh son of Sardool Singh and Lakhbir Singh son of Bhagel Singh, Mahender Kaur wife of Lakhbir Singh, Veer Kaur wife of Lakhbir Singh suffered multiple injuries. Swaran Singh and Lakhbir Singh died on the spot whereas the others were sent to Government Hospital, Karnal by arranging a vehicle. It was further reported that driver of the bus Chanan Singh absconded. Chanan Singh driver was apprehended thereafter and he filed an application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code His application was dismissed by the Illaqa Magistrate on the ground that it was not a simple case of accident attracting Section 304-A Indian Penal Code and bail could not be granted. According to the Magistrate, the allegations disclosed offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and the same has been dismissed on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11470 of 2000, titled as Court on its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and others decided on 23.11.2001 has held that in cases of extreme negligence and recklessness, the driver may be liable for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304 Indian Penal Code. The view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under :- "In view the above rules of law laid down by our Honble High Court, where it is found that the case is of extreme or reckless negligence, a driver may also be liable for the offence punishable under Section 304 or 302 Indian Penal Code as the case may be. In criminal cases the amount of degree of negligence are determine factors. In the instant case, as per the allegations of the prosecution, the accused-applicant was driving the bus at a very fast speed rashly and negligently. He came on the wrong side of the road and directly hit the car in which deceased Swaran Singh and Lakhvir Singh and four injured were travelling. There may not be any dispute with the proposition of law that the site plan can only be taken into consideration on the merits of the case when the same is proved in accordance with law. But at the stage of bail, the prosecution case is to be seen as it is and all the documents/evidence collected by the Investigating Officer have to be taken into consideration. The site plan prepared by the investigating officer in this case depicts that the accused brought the bus on the extreme wrong side of the road. He was approaching the main road i.e. Karnal-Assandh road from link road. So he was required to be very cautious and careful rather he took the bus on the wrong side and directly hit the car. The accused was coming from the link road and was approaching the main road. He must have the knowledge that traffic is moving on the road and if he will drive the bus at a fast speed while approaching the main road and to drive the bus on the extreme wrong side the said act of the accused was likely to cause danger to the other persons moving on the road. He must have the knowledge that traffic is moving on the road and if he will drive the bus at a fast speed while approaching the main road and to drive the bus on the extreme wrong side the said act of the accused was likely to cause danger to the other persons moving on the road. Thus, the allegations mentioned in the FIR which have been corroborated from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and the site plan prepared by the investigating officer, the opinion of the learned illaqa magistrate seem to be correct that it is not a case of mere rash and negligent driving rather it appears to be a case of reckless, culpable or extreme negligence which may attract Section 304 Indian Penal Code as per the rule of law laid down by the Division Bench of our Honble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11470 of 2000 titled as Court on its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and others." 2. Mr. Sumeet Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in such like cases, intention to kill cannot be inferred merely because the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. According to the learned counsel, in cases where there are allegations of motived killing, such an argument could be raised but in cases where there is no pre-determined mind motivated with the intention to kill, it may not be proper to impute the offences under Section 302 or 304 Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel, the allegations levelled in the FIR do not disclose the commission of offence under Section 304 or 302 Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel has further pointed out that this is not even the stage to go into this question because by investigation, it would be established whether charge under Section 304 or 302 Indian Penal Code could be framed against the petitioner. In the absence of such a prima facie evidence, the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code at best could be imputed to the petitioner which is bailable and the same has been alleged in the FIR. In the absence of such a prima facie evidence, the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code at best could be imputed to the petitioner which is bailable and the same has been alleged in the FIR. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Salman Khans case rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2467 of 2003, decided on 3.9.2003 which has also been followed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 42159-M of 2003, decided on 18.9.2003. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Lahore High Court in the case of Gurdev Singh Sardar Puran Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Lahore 459. 3. Mr. G.P.S. Nagra, learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner was fully aware about the consequences of his rash and negligent driving and, therefore, should be assumed to have caused the death of Swaran Singh and Lakhbir Singh with that knowledge. The learned counsel has referred to the view of the Division Bench rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 11470 of 2000, titled Court on its Own Motion v. State of Punjab, decided on 23.11.2001 and argued that vigorous action by framing charge under Section 304 Indian Penal Code would be more appropriate in such like cases along with alternate charge of Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the FIR and the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, I have reached the conclusion that this petition deserves to succeed and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail. At this stage, it is not possible to conclusively determine as to whether an offence under Section 304 or 302 Indian Penal Code is made out or it is offence under Section 304-C Indian Penal Code alone. It is true that the Division Bench of this Court has held that it would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder without intention but with knowledge that the act of such a person may cause death or such bodily injuries which may result into his death. It has further been held that it would be the nature of the act that would determine the gravity and nature of the offence. It has further been held that it would be the nature of the act that would determine the gravity and nature of the offence. The Division Bench has concluded with the following words :- "We are, therefore, of the opinion that in cases covered by the News items and in similar matters not necessarily arising out of motor accidents which are the result of utter callousness, that come to out notice with disturbing regularity and are a matter of deep concern, a prosecution for an offence punishable only under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code may not be in order, and the circumstances may warrant more vigorous action. We, therefore, issue a direction to Courts subordinate to this Court to ensure that in cases of extreme negligence and rashness and only where the evidence and circumstances so warrant, a charge under Section 304 or 302 of the Indian Penal Code adequate to the circumstances of the case be framed alongwith an alternative charge under Section 304-A of the Code. The matter is disposed of accordingly." 5. It is, thus, evident that act of the petitioner with reference to the consequences resulting into the death of two persons would be concretised in the form of a charge. At this stage, it is not possible to reach a positive conclusion that offences under Section 302 or 304 Indian Penal Code is made out. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed. 6. It is further pertinent to mention that this Court has granted the relief in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42159-M of 2003 in case FIR No. 162 dated 22.8.2003, registered under Sections 304/304-A/279/427 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal. The Magistrate shall ask the petitioner to furnish heavy surety in view of the fact that charge under Sections 304/302 Indian Penal Code might eventually be framed. The observations made in this order shall not influence any other proceedings flowing from the FIR. Petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.