The Delhi High Court has granted bail to the law student booked under Section- 307 IPC (attempt to murder) in rash-driving case to secure attendance in his college.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that grant of bail largely depends on gravity of offence and the single circumstance of possibility of evidence tampering cannot be the universal guide in restricting the liberty.
The applicant was accused of allegedly hitting someone during rash driving and then dragging the person on bonnet after the accident. In the disclosure statement, he revelaed his passion to drive fast and stated that he used to make videos of speedometer and place them on WhatsApp status.
The application was vehemently opposed on the ground that the injured was hit deliberately with an intention to kill and was dragged up to 100-150 meters causing grievous injuries. Reliance was placed on Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI , 2011 Latest Caselaw 860 SC, Suleman Rehiman Mulani & ANR Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1967 Latest Caselaw 284 SC
Senior Counsel for the applicant narrated the incident from his point of view and submitted that only offence under Sections 279/338 IPC is prima facie disclosed and Sections 307/308 IPC have been wrongly invoked. He averred that intention to kill could not be deciphered merely because the injured was dragged for about 100 meters on the bonnet of the car.
The Court gave serious thought to factual and legal position with reference to the judgments relied by the complainant and observed that intention or knowledge is a man’s state of mind and are matters of inference from the circumstances of the case.
"Each case has to be decided on its own facts and intention may be gathered from the nature and consequences of the act and attendant circumstances. In a case where negligence or rashness to cause death or injury is apparent and nothing more, Sections 337/338 IPC or Section 304-A IPC may be accordingly attracted. However, where rash and negligent act is preceded with knowledge that such act is likely to cause death or injury, Section 304-II or Sections 307/308 IPC may be attracted. Further if such rash and negligent act is preceded with real intention on the part of wrong doer to cause death, offence may be punishable under Section 302 IPC. As such, the presumption of intention is not a proposition of law but it needs to be ascertained whether the mind is usually able to foresee what are the natural consequences of his act."
It noted that the petitioner was driving without license accompained by his father. The Court observed that at this stage, the matter only needs to be prima facie seen for granting or declining of bail and whether an offence under Sections 307/308 IPC is made out is best to be left to be decided by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of consideration of framing of charge.
"The fact that accused had been earlier driving the car though at high speeds, does indicate that he was well accustomed to drive, though not in accordance with law since the license was never obtained. The fact that the petitioner failed to stop the car on indication from a distance of 14-15 yards and further drove for about 100 meters with injured clung to the bonnet does not lead to a conclusive inference that injured was hit with an intention to kill."
The Court took into consideration various factors needed to be borne in mind for allowing bail and concluded:
"The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and is not to be withheld as a punishment. The possibility of evidence being tempered or the witnesses being influenced has also to be kept in perspective. One single circumstance, cannot be treated as a universal validity or necessarily justifying the grant of refusal of bail which is largely influenced with the nature/seriousness of offence."
Noting that the petitioner has been languishing in jail for a period of about two months and the fact that the investigation is over, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the chargesheet has already been filed, the Court stated that no purpose is served by keeping him behind the bars.
It further noted that since the petitioner was not in possession of a driving license, the injured may be faced with a long drawn litigation for compensation, as the liability may ultimately fall on the driver/owner of the vehicle.
Keeping the rights of the victim in mind, the Court said appropriate conditions can be imposed on the accused while letting him out on bail.
"The rights of the victim in such circumstances need to be kept in perspective, as and when any orders are passed on bail and adequate conditions can be imposed to provide some relief to the victims and secure their interest at the stage of bail itself. The right of a victim does not just merely extend to file an appeal or participate in such proceedings but much more is required to be done in such cases of accident in order to safeguard the rights of compensation of the victim, who at times is left at mercy of God, even to manage the medical expenses, at his or her end."
The application was thus allowed.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
