Madras High Court
This Is A Petition Filed By The vs Central Bureau Of Investigation) ...
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
Crl.O.P. No. 16418 of 2013 B. RAJENDRAN, J This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No. 354 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304 (ii), 338, and 337 of IPC (3 counts) and 134 (a,b) of Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 22.05.2013, the petitioner drove the Mercedez Benz car owned by him in an inebriated condition along with 3 of his friends as co-passengers. When the car was nearing the maternity hospital at Egmore, the petitioner due to his rash and negligent driving owing to intoxication, rammed in to persons who were sleeping in the pavement and caused the death of one minor boy aged about 13 years besides causing injuries to others.
3. (i) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that on 22.05.2013, to attend to an emergency call, the petitioner left his house at Egmore in his car and the car was driven by his friend Kumar. The petitioner, along with his two friends Syed Anwar and Anil Rao travelled as co-passenger. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, when the car was nearing the maternity hospital at Egmore, a Patrol Jeep was driven in a rash and negligent manner and in order to avoid hitting the jeep, the driver Kumar had sweared the car to his left and inspite of the same, the patrol jeep hit the car on it's right whereby the driver lost control of the vehicle and rammed in to the pavement where some persons were sleeping. The driver Kumar was arrested on the same day, but he was not released on bail. It is the further case of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never taken to Government Royapettah Hospital and produced before the medical officer to prove his intoxication or otherwise. Even in the remand report submitted before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, on 24.05.2013, only Kumar was shown as an accused and driver of the Benz car. In the remand report, though reference was made to the medical certificate produced by the Doctor, the name of the persons who were examined for drunkenness were not mentioned, much less the name of the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner was never and ever produced before a Medical Officer to prove his intoxication or a medical report was obtained against him. Therefore, the so-called medical certificate produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was medically examined is false and fabricated one. It is the further contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the defacto complainant Rajesh was not an eye witness to the occurrence and therefore the theory put forward by the defacto complainant cannot be believed. It is also the case of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is a discrepancy in the complaint given by the petitioner and the case projected by the prosecution, therefore, the very case, as projected by the prosecution, on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, is unbelievable.
(ii) It is the further contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that only based on the fact that the petitioner is owner of the Car, besides being an industrialist, he was implicated in this case, especially after the occurrence was widely published by the Media. The petitioner has earlier filed Petition seeking bail in Crl.M.P. No. 7285 of 2013 and the same was dismissed on 25.06.2013 by the learned Principle Sessions Judge, Chennai only by referring to the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. especially when such statements are incorrect. The petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2013 and remanded to judicial custody after making custodial interrogation for one day. Under those circumstances, there is no compelling necessity to detain the petitioner in prison. The petitioner is also ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court as a condition precedent for releasing him on bail. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner prays for granting bail to the petitioner.
(iii) In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) (2012) 1 SCC 40 to contend that in a petition for bail, Bail is a Rule and Jail is an exception. Merely because a criminal offence has been committed, in Criminal Jurisprudence, unless a person is convicted of the offence, he is deemed to be innocent. The Court may also take note of the fact that the liberty of the person, as enshrined in Article 21 of The Constitution of India, is affected due to his incarceration. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that at this stage, when the investigation is almost concluded and the co-accused have been granted bail, incarceration of the petitioner is no longer warranted.
4. (i) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor oppose the bail petition filed by the petitioner by relying on the detailed counter affidavit filed by the investigating officer. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner was arrested after thorough investigation in to the case and after the testimony of several witnesses examined in this case implicated him and his role. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to contend that the entire case projected by the prosecution is only on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant Rajesh.
(ii) According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner along with 3 others consumed alcohol on the night of 22.05.2013 and under the influence of alcohol and with the abetment of 3 of his friends, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner. At about 1.00 am on 23.05.2013, when the car was nearing the maternity hospital at Egmore, the petitioner lost control of the vehicle, dashed against the right front wheel of a police patrol vehicle which came in the opposite direction. Thereafter, the car swirled and dashed against a motor cycle parked in the bus shelter and ploughed in to the bus shelter. In that process, two boys aged about 19 years, who were engaged in fixing flex advertisement boards in the bus shelter sustained severe injuries. Then the vehicle rammed in to the children who were sleeping in a pavement nearby and in that process, the petitioner caused injuries to five persons namely (i) Master. Muniraj, aged about 13 years (ii) Subarchitha, a minor girl (iii) Vasu (iv) Khaja Mohideen and (5) Mani.
(iii) Based on the information given by one Rajesh, an eye witness, the case in Crime No. 315 of 2013 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 (2 counts), 337 (3 counts) of IPC read with Sections 185 (2), 134 (a) (i) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. During the course of investigation, one of the injured i.e., Muniraj, aged 13 years succumbed to the injuries on 23.05.2013 at about 22.30 hours. On obtaining information relating to the death of the minor boy at 01.15 hours on 24.05.2013, the case was altered into Sections 279, 304 (ii) IPC, 338 IPC, 337 IPC (3 counts) and 134 (a, b) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act at about 2.00 hours on 24.05.2013. The minor girl Subarchitha is still continuing treatment in the hospital for the injuries.
(iv) It is mainly contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the car was driven only by the petitioner under the influence of alcohol and it was not driven by Kumar, as alleged by the petitioner. The name of the petitioner is also mentioned in the first information report itself. It is contended that A-3 and A-4 have accompanied the petitioner in his car at the time of accident and they have deposed under Section 164 of Cr.PC before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet that it was the petitioner who drove the vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Apart from this evidence, the other prosecution witnesses examined by the investigation officer clearly stated that the petitioner alone drove the car in an inebriated condition. It is the further contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that since the petitioner drove the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drunkenness certificate was obtained from the competent medical officer attached to Government Royapettah Hospital. The learned Public Prosecutor would further contend that Tr. Ravichandran, Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, who allowed the petitioner to leave the place of accident on the night of 24.05.2013, was placed under suspension and presently, the investigation is entrusted to an Assistant Commissioner of Police. During the course of investigation, A-2 Kumar was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.05.2013. The patrol vehicle which was hit by the car on the night of 23.05.2013 was examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and his report was obtained.
(v) It is the specific contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that on the fateful night, the petitioner and three others have consumed alcohol in the terrace of the residence of the petitioner and scaled over the main gate to reach the parking place. On seeing this, one Mani, Watchman of the Apartment, requested the petitioner and others not to drive the car since they are in an inebriated condition. His advise was not headed to by the petitioner. Further, two sub Inspector of Police, who were engaged in picketing duty opposite to the flat premises of the petitioner intervened and warned the petitioner not to venture in his car since he was in an inebriated condition. Even this was ignored by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is the petitioner who drove the vehicle on the fateful day in which A-2 Kumar and two others have travelled and they have also abetted the offence committed by the petitioner under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner is an Industrialist and son of an eminent person in the locality. The petitioner is a well educated person, having been educated in a foreign country. The petitioner is a Director of a leading Brewery company and he knew pretty well about the effects of alcohol and by his act of driving the car under the influence of alcohol, a minor boy aged 13 years died and a minor girl, aged 10 years is still in hospital and taking treatment for the injuries sustained by her. The minor girl sustained fracture for which she is taking treatment in the Bone and Joint hospital at Chennai. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that this is a case of insensibility and insensitivity on the part of the petitioner who had driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol with the knowledge that his act would cause death or injury which is likely it cause death or it would result in an accident.
(vi) The learned Public Prosecutor mainly apprehends that if the petitioner is let on bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner influencing the witness or tampering the evidence and in such event, it will hamper the normal course of investigation. In support of this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that soon after the accident, the petitioner gave a written undertaking to appear before the police for interrogation the next day, but he did not appear. The petitioner, knowing fully well that it is his act of negligence which caused the accident, chosen to evade the due process of law. The learned Public Prosecutor also drawn the attention of this Court to the further conduct of the petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner not only failed to appear before the respondent police for interrogation, but has left the Country on 25.05.2013 from Bangalore to a foreign country. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for Anticipatory Bail before this Court during the summer vacation and it was dismissed by this Court on 29.05.2013. In the meantime, the father of the petitioner has given a personal undertaking to produce the petitioner before the respondent police, but failed to do so. Thereafter, since the petitioner did not subject himself to the due process of law, for interrogation, and the respondent came to know that the petitioner left the country, steps were taken to declare the petitioner a Proclaimed Offender. Accordingly, the prosecution has taken steps and obtained an order declaring the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court and filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail and it was dismissed. Subsequently, when the petitioner landed at Cochin Airport, he was arrested by the respondent police on 13.06.2013. Thus, from 23.05.2013 to 12.06.2013, the petitioner successfully evaded the due process of law and ensured that he could not be arrested. The petitioner is a proclaimed offender on the date of arrest and therefore the learned Public Prosecutor apprehends that if the petitioner is let on bail, he would immediately leave the country and in such event, it will be very difficult for the prosecution to conclude the trial of the case.
(vii) Lastly, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the case against the petitioner was not fabricated, as alleged but the petitioner was arrested on the basis of legal evidence made available. The petitioner and others are fully aware that their act would endanger the life of other innocent public on the road either by causing death or injury which is likely to cause death. The learned Public Prosecutor would further contend that the investigating in this case is not over and it is in crucial stage. The chemical analysis report in this case is awaited. The injured minor girl is still in hospital taking treatment. The petitioner refused to give blood and urine sample and did not cooperate with the investigation at the time of medical examination. Therefore, releasing the petitioner on bail would result in delay in conclusion of the trial. It is too early on the part of the petitioner to have filed the present petition for bail.
(viii) The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda) 2012 8 SCC 450 and (Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra) 2012 2 SCC 648 to contend that the Court has to take note of the severity of the offence and also the conduct of the petitioner in evading due process of law.
5. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records. At the outset, the peculiar facts involved in this case has to be looked in to. Here is a case where the petitioner alleged to have driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and caused accident in which a minor boy died and caused injuries to others. First of all, the petitioner claims that he has not driven the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was driven by one Kumar. The petitioner denies having driven the vehicle. This is the main case putforth by the petitioner. The petitioner also denies that he was subjected to any medical examination to prove his intoxication at the time of accident.
6. When we see the complaint given by the defacto complainant Rajesh, who said to have witnessed the occurrence, it is clearly stated about the inmates in the car especially the person who is sitting in the driver seat. The complainant further states that the person seated next to the driver stated that he would take up the responsibility for the accident as if he had driven the vehicle, though it is the petitioner who had driven the vehicle in an inebriated condition. In the remand report also, it is categorically indicated that it is the petitioner who had driven the vehicle. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the owner of the car and after the accident, he was allowed to leave the scene of occurrence, of course, after obtaining a written undertaking from him undertaking to appear for enquiry the next day. The accident took place in the night of 22.05.2013 and early morning of 23.05.2013. The victims in the accident are two young children, who are pavement dwellers, as also others. Due to the accident, one minor boy aged 13 died and the victim girl is still in hospital taking treatment.
7. According to the prosecution, in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. from among the co-occupants of the car, they have categorically stated that it is the petitioner who had driven the car. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to go in to the merits or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioner as they are left open to be decided at the time of trial. In the present petition for bail, this Court is not concerned about the question of punishment that may be awarded to the accused in this case. This Court has to only see whether the petitioner is entitled for bail in this case.
8. In the present case, the petitioner said to have driven the car in an inebriated condition. Soon after the accident, the petitioner undertook to appear before the respondent police and subject himself to the interrogation, but he did not do so. It is needless to say that the petitioner ought not to have been let off soon after the accident. The Police Inspector, who let the petitioner to go scot-free was suspended and investigation is being conducted on this aspect.
9. After the death of one of the victims on the same day i.e., on the night of 23.05.2013 at 11.30 hours, the section of the case was altered. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner left the Country on 25.05.2013 from Bangalore to a foreign country. This conduct of the petitioner has to be taken note of. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail before this Court and it was dismissed on 29.05.2013. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner filed another anticipatory bail petition before the Kerala High Court by claiming that he is a resident of Kerala and therefore the petition for anticipatory bail was filed there. The said Petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Kerala High Court for want of jurisdiction since the accident took place at Chennai. In the meantime, the prosecution has obtained an order declaring the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender after following the procedures contemplated under Law. Only thereafter, when the petitioner landed at Cochin Airport, he was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner, evaded the due process of law for quite some time.
10. The conduct of the petitioner in this case has to be noted by this Court. Soon after the accident, the petitioner was allowed to go scot-free by a Inspector of Police, against whom action was taken by the Police authorities by suspending him. Secondly, the petitioner, soon after hearing the death of one of the accident victims, left the Country on 25.05.2013 from Bangalore to evade arrest. Thirdly, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail petition before this Court and it was dismissed on 29.05.2013. Fourthly, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court by filing an Anticipatory Bail Petition and that was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the meantime, the petitioner was declared as a Proclaimed Offender. Only thereafter, did the petitioner surfaced from his hide out and eventually arrested by the respondent police on 13.06.2013. The further conduct of the petitioner after his remand has also to be taken note of. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner, inside the prison, was in possession of Cigarettes which is a banned substance. This shows that the petitioner is very much influential in violating the procedures while remaining in prison. It is not made known as to whether any action has been taken against the erring officials who have permitted the petitioner to possess cigarettes inside the prison. The fact remains that even after arrest and remand, the petitioner has disregard for Rule of Law and he has flouted all the norms while remaining in prison. This is evident that the petitioner is an influential person and this conduct of the petitioner is significant in considering the present petition for bail.
11. With this background, this Court has to analyse whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of bail. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decisions reported in (Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) (2012) 1 SCC 40 vehemently argued that Bail is a Rule and Jail is an exception. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed or confined even before his indictment in the case. In other words, unless the petitioner is convicted for the offence, he is deemed to be innocent and he is entitled for granting bail. In this context, reference was made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in para Nos. 21, 23, 25 and 27 of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court which reads as follows:-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. ......
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
24. ....
25. The provisions of Cr.PC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.
26. .....
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution."
12. By referring to the passage quoted above, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no compelling necessity to continue the incarceration of the petitioner any longer.
13. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor quoted certain passages from the very same decision relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and contended that in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, referred to above, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the fact that charge sheet was filed, trial of the case commenced, since it will take a long time for conclusion of the trial, the Honourable Supreme Court granted bail. The Honourable Supreme Court also considered the objections raised on behalf of the prosecution and eventually held that since charge sheet was filed, there is no compelling necessity to continue the incarceration of the appellants therein. In the present case, the investigation is at a crucial stage and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor distinguished the facts of the case involved in the case before the Honourable Supreme Court and the present case.
14. On perusal of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) (2012) 1 SCC 40 this Court deems it necessary to quote certain paragraphs which are relevant for consideration of this case. In that case, the Honurable Supreme Court referred to the decision reported in State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand, 1977 SCC (Crl.) 594 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that for considering a petition for bail, the Court has to take in to consideration whether there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. In para No.37 and 38 of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) (2012) 1 SCC 40, reference was made to the earlier decisions and it was held as follows:-
"37. The principles, which the Court must consider while granting or declining bail, have been culled out by this Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 = 2001 SCC (Crl) 674 thus: (SCC pp.284-85, para-8) "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of (the) evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words 'reasonable grounds for believing' instead of 'the evidence' which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
"38. In State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 = 2005 SCC (Crl) 1960 (2) this Court held as under: (SCC pp.31 & 32, paras 18 & 22) "18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offences being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT Delhi) and Gurucharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admin). While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 = 2004 SCC (Crl) 1977 (SCC pp.535-36, para 11)."
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances the following factors also before granting bail; they are
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge (See Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002 3 SCC 598 = 2002 SCC (crl) 688 and Puran vs. Rambilas) (2001 6 SCC 338 = 2001 SCC (Crl) 1124
15. From the reading of the passages quoted from the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, it is very clear that while deciding an application for bail, the Court has to look into the circumstances that exist in the case and such circumstance should not only relate to the severity of the crime or the punishment the accused may suffer, but the Court has to independently consider the character and conduct of the applicant and whether the grant of bail would affect the criminal trial at his instance.
16. In this context, it is also worthwhile to refer to the decision relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor in (State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda) 2012 8 SCC 450 and (Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra) 2012 2 SCC 648. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the above said decisions arise out of an appeal preferred by the State against the conviction imposed on the accused therein and sought to enhance the sentence, therefore, these decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case. It is true that the decisions in these cases arise out of appeal filed by the State and by the accused respectively. It is made clear that this Court is not considering these decisions for the purpose of granting or declining bail to the petitioner but certain guidelines given in these decisions are taken note of while deciding the present petition.
17. It is to be observed that in India, lot of motor accidents are taking place in which valuable human lives are lost or suffer from disability. People who cause such accidents have no fear for the life of others because the punishment is not severe. In this context, paragraph Nos. 86 and 87 in the decision reported in (State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda) 2012 8 SCC 450 can usefully be quoted as under:-
"86. Drunken driving has become a menace to our society. Every day drunken driving results in accidents and several human lives are lost, pedestrians in many of our cities are not safe. Late night parties among urban elite have now become a way of life followed by drunken driving. Alcohol consumption impairs consciousness and vision and it becomes impossible to judge accurately how far away the objects are . When depth perception deteriorates, eye muscles lose their precision causing inability to focus on the objects. Further, in more unfavourable conditions like fog, mist, rain etc., whether it is night or day, it can reduce the visibility of an object to the point of being below the limit of discernibility. In short, alcohol leads to loss of coordination, poor judgment, slowing down of reflexes and distortion of vision. (Emphasis supplied)
87. Punishment meted out to a drunken driver is at least a deterrent for other such persons getting away with minor punishment and fine. Such incidents are bound to increase with no safety for pedestrians on the roads. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that the accused was not under the influence of liquor or beyond the limit prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and he was in his senses and the victims were at fault being on the middle of the road, is without any substance and only to be rejected.
18. Similarly, in the decision reported in (Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra) 2012 2 SCC 648 the Honourable Supreme Court referred to the report of the World Health Organisation and the relevant portion thereof can usefully be extracted hereunder:-
"96. The World Health Organisation in the Global Status report on Road Safety has pointed out that speeding and drunk driving are the major contributing factors in road accidents. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the total number of deaths due to road accidents in India every year is now over 1,35,000. NCRB report also states that drunken driving as a major factor for road accidents. Our country has a dubious distinction of registering maximum number of deaths in road accidents. It is high time that lawmakers revisit the sentencing policy reflected in Section 304-A IPC."
19. In the very same judgment in (Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra) 2012 2 SCC 648, in para Nos. 41 and 42, it was also held as follows:-
"41. Rash and negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. As a matter of law in view of the provisions of IPC the cases which fall within the last clause of Section 299 but not within clause "Fourthly" of Section 300 may cover the cases of rash and negligent act done with the knowledge of the likelihood of dangerous consequences and may entail punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC. Section 304-A IPC takes out its ambit the cases of death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act amounting to culpable homicide of either description."
42. A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that cause death which he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequences and may be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. There is no incongruity, if simultaneously with the offence under Section 304 Part II, a person who has done an act so rashly or negligently endangering human life or the personal safety of the others and causes grievous hurt to any person is tried for the offence under Section 338 of IPC.
20. It is evident from the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court that a person has knowledge that his act is likely to cause death even there is no intention on his part either to cause such death or to cause injury which is likely to cause death, he is liable for punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC.
21. In the above decision in (Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra) 2012 2 SCC 648 the Honourable Supreme Court, referring to the decision reported in (Empress of India vs. Idu Beg) 14 ILR (1881) 3 All 776 held as follows:-
"........Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
22. A cumulative reading of the decisions would indicate that nowdays it has become a trend to drive motor vehicles after consuming alcohol and because of such a trend, lots of death occur and the injured become disabled. In the present case, without going in to the merits or otherwise of the case, suffice it to state that a person drove the vehicle in an inebriated condition and caused the death of a young boy aged 13 years besides causing injury to many. One of the injured minor girl is in hospital taking treatment for the fracture sustained by her. It is also to be noted that the minor boy who succumbed to the injuries and the minor girl who is taking treatment in the hospital were sleeping in the pavement at the time of the accident. The accident took place at about 1.00 am on 23.05.2013 and there may not be and could not be much traffic flow in the road at that odd hour. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and the fact that the investigation in this case is not completed and it is in the crucial stage, this Court is of the view that it is too early for the petitioner to have filed the petition for bail. This Court also has to take note of the fact that the petitioner left the Country soon after hearing the death of one of the victims in this case on 25.05.2013 from Bangalore thereby escaped from the clutches of law and attempted to subvert the criminal process for a period of about one month till he was arrested on 13.06.2013. This Court can also infer that the petitioner has surfaced from his hideout only after the prosecution obtained orders declaring him as a Proclaimed Offender. Before the petitioner could be arrested, he has filed an anticipatory bail before this Court and it was dismissed on 29.05.2013. The petitioner also approached the Kerala High Court praying for anticipatory bail by stating that he is a resident of Kerala and that was also dismissed. Thus, after his unsuccessful attempts to secure anticipatory bail, the petitioner surfaced from his hide out. This Court is also taking note of the conduct of the petitioner inside the jail by possessing cigarettes. This court also taken note of the apprehension raised by the prosecution that if the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every possibility for him to leave the Country and in such event, it will be very difficult for the prosecution to subject him to the criminal trial.
23. Lastly, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the co-accused in this case have been released on bail by this Court in Crl.OP No. 14566 of 2013 on 21.06.2013 and therefore, the petitioner also can be extended the same benefit. Such an argument of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. This Court granted bail to the co-accused viz, Syed Anwar and Anil Rao on 21.06.2013 only on the ground that at the time of accident, they travelled as co-occupants in the car and therefore, the same yardstick cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner for granting bail.
24. For all these reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
08-07-2013 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No B. RAJENDRAN, J Crl. OP No. 16418 of 2013 08-07-2013 Order in Crl.O.P. No. 16418 of 2013 To The Honourable Mr. Justice B. Rajendran From R. Sathish P.A. to Hon'ble Judges