JUDGEMNT Veena Birbal, J. 1. Present is a petition under section 439 Cr.P.C read with section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner Utsav Bhasin for grant of bail in a case arising out of FIR No.282/2008 PS Lajpat Nagar u/s 279/338/304 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 10th/11th September, 2008 at about 2.40 am, an information was received at P.S. Lajpat Nagar regarding an accident having taken place on Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, opposite Defence Colony. DD No. 45A was recorded in this regard and copy of same was handed over to ASI Satyavir Singh who along with Constable Giriraj went to the place of occurrence and found two vehicles i.e. Car BMW make) bearing registration no. HR-26 AIK-0020 and Motorcycle (Pulsar make) bearing registration no. DL-4S-AW-6977 were involved in an accident. No eye witness was available at the spot. After completing legal formalities at the spot, ASI Satyavir Singh made endorsement on DD No.45A. At the spot, he also came to know that a PCR Van had removed two injured persons to Trauma Centre at AIIMS. ASI Satyavir informed the Duty Officer at Police Station about the accident on phone on which HC Vijay and Constable Naveen came to the spot. Both of them along with Constable Giri Raj were left at the spot for keeping a watch there. ASI Satyavir reached Trauma Centre AIIMS and collected MLC of both injured persons i.e Anuj and Mrigank Srivastava and Doctor had declared both of them unfit for making statement. Thereafter he came back to spot and prepared a rukka and sent it to the police station through Constable Giriraj and in pursuance thereof FIR no.282/08 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation was marked to SI Sandeep Ghai who reached the spot. During investigation, District Crime Team/South District carried out inspection of scene of crime as well as of accidental vehicles. A team from CFSL (CBI), Lodhi Road comprising officers of Finger Print Department, Physics Department and Photo Division inspected BMW car involved in the accident and took photographs from different angles and lifted chance prints. They also inspected the scene of crime. IO also served notice u/s 133 of M.V.Act to the owner of BMW car. A team from CFSL (CBI), Lodhi Road comprising officers of Finger Print Department, Physics Department and Photo Division inspected BMW car involved in the accident and took photographs from different angles and lifted chance prints. They also inspected the scene of crime. IO also served notice u/s 133 of M.V.Act to the owner of BMW car. One of the Directors of the company gave in writing that Utsav Bhasin s/o Mr.Narinder Kumar Bhasin (Director) was driving the said car at the time of accident. Clothes of injured Anuj Aditya were also seized during investigation. Mechanical inspection of both vehicles was also got done. During investigation, statement of one auto driver, namely, Vijay Kumar (PW) was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. who is alleged to have seen one boy and one girl getting down from BMW car after the accident and also witnessed two injured persons being taken to Hospital On 12th September, 2008, accused was arrested on identification of PW-Vijay Kumar from Kashmiri Gate. Since the offence alleged was bailable, accused was released on bail. 4. On 13th September, 2008, an information was received at Police Station Lajpat Nagar regarding the death of injured Anuj and on that basis DD No.6B was recorded and offence u/s 304A IPC was added for investigation. On 15th September, 2008, statement of injured, namely, Mrigank Srivastava was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Based on his statement, section 304 IPC was added in place of section 304A IPC. 5. Petitioner had moved an application under section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail before learned ASJ, New Delhi which was rejected vide order dated 18th September, 2008 on the ground that application for cancellation of bail moved by father of the deceased was pending before this court. Thereafter, a petition for grant of anticipatory bail was moved before this court. The same was rejected vide orders dated 26th September, 2008. Petitioner surrendered before the IO and was rearrested on 27th September, 2008. Since 28th September, 2008, he is in judicial custody. 6. Bail application of petitioner under section 437 Cr.P.C was first moved before learned MM which was dismissed vide order dated 6th October, 2008. Thereafter, another application was moved on his behalf under section 439 Cr.P.C before learned ASJ, New Delhi. Same was also rejected vide order dated 6th November, 2008. 7. Present petition for grant of bail is moved on 14th Novemer, 2008. Thereafter, another application was moved on his behalf under section 439 Cr.P.C before learned ASJ, New Delhi. Same was also rejected vide order dated 6th November, 2008. 7. Present petition for grant of bail is moved on 14th Novemer, 2008. Investigation is complete. Charge sheet has already been filed in the concerned court. 8. Mr.Arun Jaitely, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is a young boy of 19 years of age and is a student. His mother died long back. After his arrest on 12th September, 2008, he was medically examined and no alcohol was found to have been consumed. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that as per evidence on record, vehicle was being driven at the speed of 70-75 km/hr. It is contended that material on record would show that the venue of accident is a car corridor which is a narrow portion of road. Motorcycle involved in accident came from rear and moved close to the left of BMW car and silencer of motor cycle came under the wheel and because of impact, unfortunate accident took place and pillion rider(Anuj Aditya) fell down. It is contended that after impact, air bags in front portion of the car opened and petitioner could not see anything. It is contended that alleged statement of Mrigank Srivastava, surviving victim is an after thought. It is also contended that Section 304 IPC is wrongly added due to pressure of media and family members of deceased. It is contended that present is a case of accident u/s 279/337/304A IPC. Ingredients of section 304 IPC are not made out. Neither any intention nor any knowledge can be attributed to petitioner for causing accident or for causing bodily injury, as such, no culpability can be imputed to petitioner. It is contended that there is no dragging of deceased Anuj as is evident from CFSL report dated 13/10/2008, as per which no drag marks could be detected on shirt and baniyan worn by deceased at the time of accident. It is contended that statement of Mrigank Srivastava (surviving victim) stand belied by scientific evidence i.e aforesaid CFSL report. It is further contended that petitioner is made a victim because vehicle driven by him was a BMW car and that he comes from a well to do family. It is contended that statement of Mrigank Srivastava (surviving victim) stand belied by scientific evidence i.e aforesaid CFSL report. It is further contended that petitioner is made a victim because vehicle driven by him was a BMW car and that he comes from a well to do family. It is pointed out that after the alleged incident, petitioner himself informed PCR at 100 from his mobile. Mr.Jaitley further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 28th September, 2008. He immediately surrendered after application for anticipatory bail was rejected. Investigation is complete. No purpose will be served in keeping him in custody, as such Petitioner be released on bail. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on Sushil Ansal Vs. CBI 1997 (3)AD(Cr.) Delhi, Krishan Lal Malhotra and Ors. Vs. Government(NCT) in Crl.M(M)1758/1997 decided on 25.7.1997, Anil Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2000 II AD(Cr.) DHC 141; Naresh Sharma Vs. State 2000 II AD(Cr.) DHC etc. 9. Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP has opposed the bail application. It is contended that statement of motorcycle driver i.e Mrigank Srivastava and another eye witness, Omvir Singh coupled with other evidence on record makes out a case under Section 304 IPC against petitioner. Learned APP has further argued that as per statements of eye witnesses, petitioner had dragged deceased Anuj upto a considerable distance after hitting the BMW car with the motorcycle and same stands support from site plan prepared during investigation which shows considerable distance between the two. It is contended that blood of petitioner gave negative test for the presence of ethyl alcohol as he ran away from the spot and could be arrested after more than 30 hours of accident. It is further contended that as per evidence collected by prosecution, there was a girl sitting with the petitioner at the time of incident. It is further contended that offence is serious in nature and larger interest of public is also to be seen. Learned APP further contended that if released on bail, chances of evidence being tampered with cannot be ruled out. It is prayed that bail application may be dismissed. Ld.APP has relied upon State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht and Ors 135(2006) DLT 465 (DB), Shivappa and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka JT 2008(4) SC 477 etc. 10. I have considered the submissions made and gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties. 11. It is prayed that bail application may be dismissed. Ld.APP has relied upon State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht and Ors 135(2006) DLT 465 (DB), Shivappa and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka JT 2008(4) SC 477 etc. 10. I have considered the submissions made and gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties. 11. Initially FIR was registered u/s 279/337 IPC as no eye witness was available. On the death of one of the victims, namely, Anuj Aditya, section 304A IPC was added on 13th September, 2008. On the statement of surviving witness i.e Mrigank Srivastava which was recorded on 15th September, 2008 after being declared fit for making statement, section 304 IPC was added in place of section 304A IPC. 12. As per statement of Mrigyank Srivastava u/s 161 Cr.P.C, on the date of incident, he and his friend Anuj(deceased) were going to Nizamuddin for having food after watching a movie at movie theatre at Saket which concluded at 1.15 a.m. They were on a motorcycle and both were wearing helmets. At about 2.30 a.m. when they crossed Moolchand Hospital and reached at BRT starting point, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, a platinum colour BMW car came from behind and hit the motor bike at a very high speed. Due to the impact, he fell down on the road along with motorcycle whereas shirt of his friend i.e deceased Anuj got struck with the rear view mirror of the car. Despite that person who was driving the car dragged Anuj to a considerable distance without bothering that his such action could cause fatal injuries resulting in death of person entangled. Instead of stopping the car (after hitting bike), the person driving the car increased its speed after it slowed down due to accident. It is alleged that had the driver stopped the car, life of Anuj could have been saved. The witness stated that he also sustained injuries after the accident. As per prosecution case, there is another eye witness to the occurrence, namely, Ombir Singh who at the relevant time was working as a Driver with a private Ltd company-Delhi Travels and Tours. On 11th September, 2008, he was on official duty to pick and drop the staff. The witness stated that he also sustained injuries after the accident. As per prosecution case, there is another eye witness to the occurrence, namely, Ombir Singh who at the relevant time was working as a Driver with a private Ltd company-Delhi Travels and Tours. On 11th September, 2008, he was on official duty to pick and drop the staff. At about 2.25 a.m. while he was coming down from Moolchand Flyover and heading towards Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, he saw one BMW car bearing registration no.HR 26AK 0020 coming with a great speed and had overtaken `Tavera car bearing no.DL-IVB-7933 being driven by him from left side. Thereafter, he heard voice of an accident and same BMW car had banged into a rear side of motorcycle No.DL4S AW 6977 as a result of which pillion rider was thrown and fell on the front wind screen of BMW car and driver of motorcycle fell down at a little distance on the pavement and BMW car went ahead dragging the pillion rider to a considerable distance. The boy who was driving BMW car was 19-20 years of age. There was a girl in the car who was sitting next to him. The witness has alleged that he got scared of incident and moved ahead. After 2-3 minutes when he reached Petrol Pump, he saw said BMW car standing on road near petrol pump. He also saw a boy and a girl coming out of car. He asked about accident from the boy i.e. petitioner who told that he was calling Police. Thereafter, that boy and girl took lift in a car and went away. There is yet another witness, namely, Vijay Singh, an auto driver, who has also made a statement to police that at the time of occurrence, he was lying in auto no.DLT/IR K 5323 near Defence Colony Petrol Pump. At about 2.20-2.30 a.m, he heard a loud/screeching sound. He came out of auto but could not see anything. After few seconds, he saw a car moving at a very fast speed which stopped after getting jerks near petrol pump. A boy and girl were sitting in the car. After 2-3 minutes, they moved out of car and locked car with remote control. They requested him to take them to Punjabi Bagh but he refused. He also noted number of BMW car on his hand. A boy and girl were sitting in the car. After 2-3 minutes, they moved out of car and locked car with remote control. They requested him to take them to Punjabi Bagh but he refused. He also noted number of BMW car on his hand. He has given description of boy and girl to police. As per CFSL report dated 13th October, 2008, the clothes entangled with rear glass mirror of the car correspond with the shirt and baniyan worn by the deceased at the time of alleged occurrence. Postmortem report shows injuries on various part of body of deceased. As per postmortem report, cause of death is coma due to `head injury. Injury sustained by Mrigyank Srivastava, another victim, as per MLC are grievous in nature. 13. While disposing of a bail application, the court cant meticulously examine the evidence. At this stage, it will not be appropriate to make any observations on merits of this case as the same may prejudice the case of either of the party. The parties are yet to make their submission before the trial court on the point of charge. 14. Statements of eye witnesses that petitioner had hit his car with the motorcycle and thereafter continued dragging Anuj to a considerable distance leading to his death, distance between the place of hitting and place where the victim fell down after accident as is shown in site plan prepared during investigation and also the CFSL report dated 13th October, 2008 showing that clothes entangled with rear glass mirror of car correspond with shirt and baniyan worn by the deceased, are all relevant facts in deciding the applicability of relevant provisions of Penal Code including Section 304 IPC. There is also a prima facie evidence on record to show that petitioner ran away from the spot. As per evidence collected, there was considerable damage to the BMW car. The speed of motor cycle was 40-45 km/hr at the time of impact as per material on record. 15. In State Vs. There is also a prima facie evidence on record to show that petitioner ran away from the spot. As per evidence collected, there was considerable damage to the BMW car. The speed of motor cycle was 40-45 km/hr at the time of impact as per material on record. 15. In State Vs. Jaspal Singh Gill (1984) 3 SCC 555 , the Honble Supreme Court been laid down that the Court before granting bail in case involving non-bailable offence particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with, the larger interest of the public or the State. 16. The victim who died was of 25 years of age. The surviving victim Mrigank Srivastava also sustained grievous injury. Taking into consideration gravity and seriousness of offence, overall interest of public , circumstances of the case, post accident conduct of the petitioner and also considering that case is at initial stage, arguments on charge are yet to be heard, material witnesses are yet to be examined, present is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Petition is rejected. 17. It may be clarified that any observations made hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.