A Prudent Person Won’t Drive Vehicle Under Influence Of Alcohol: Bombay HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Woman
The Bombay High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a woman who was accused of killing two persons due to rash and negligent driving under the influence of alcohol.
The accused preferred an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the Nagpur Bench, seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA).
A Single Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke remarked, “A prudent person will not drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The manner in which the applicant has driven the car, which appears from the CCTV Footage, caused death of two persons for which her knowledge can be attributed. The person who sat on steering wheel after consumption of alcohol and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner can be attributed knowledge. Under the Indian Penal Law, knowledge is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. The knowledge will be slightly on a higher pedestal than reason to believe.”
The Bench added that a person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses and a person is presumed to have a reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same and hence, the driving of the car in a drunken condition and resulting knowledge of consequence are sufficient to attract the provisions.
Senior Advocate S.V. Manohar appeared on behalf of the applicant/accused while Public Prosecutor D.V. Chauhan appeared on behalf of the non-applicant/State.
Brief Facts -
The applicant/accused was an educated lady who was running a company and was also working as Human Resource/Recruitment Consultant and belonged to a highly respectable family. In February this year, an FIR was lodged against her on allegations that she drove car (Mercedes) in a rash and negligent manner and gave a dash to two-wheeler (Activa) from rear side and caused grievous injuries to the scooter rider and pillion rider. Subsequently, they both were reported to be dead. A crime was registered against the applicant and she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). She was released on bail on executing bond of Rs. 3,000/-.
In March month, a Senior Police Inspector submitted a report before the JMFC, contending that during investigation, it was revealed that the applicant drove car under an influence of alcohol in a rash and negligent manner, having knowledge that it may cause injuries or death to any person. The Investigating Officer raised a ground that the applicant contravened provisions of MVA as she did not take the injured to any hospital and rather, fled away. Also, it was alleged that she did not cooperate with the investigating agency. JMFC rejected the application which was challenged in revision and the same was pending. As the applicant apprehended her arrest due to adding of non-bailable Sections, she preferred an application before the Sessions Judge but the same was rejected. Hence, she approached the High Court, seeking anticipatory bail.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “… the applicant is already released on bail by learned Magistrate. After application of non-bailable offences, the State applied for permission to arrest the applicant which is rejected. The revision against the said order is still pending. At this stage, no application by the State is pending seeking arrest of the applicant. Thus, it can be said that, at this stage, there is no reasonable apprehension for the applicant that she may be arrested in a non-bailable offence.”
The Court said that the applicant drove car in a drunken condition and hit the scooter by which two persons lost their lives and without showing any remorse to them, she left the place and violated Section 134 of MVA.
“… the applicant made an attempt to divert the investigation by making various statements at various points of time. At one breath, she said that co-accused Madhuri Sarda was driving the car and in another breath, she informed the Medical Officer that driver was driving the car. The applicant, who is an educated lady, sat on the driver seat by consuming alcohol and was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner”, it further noted.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the application.
Cause Title- Ritu v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:6632)
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate S.V. Manohar and Advocate Prakash Jaiswal.
Non-applicant: PP D.V. Chauhan, APP H.N. Prabhu, and Advocate Yusuf Jamel Shaikh.