MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused of rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal road accident involving a bus and a motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the offence fell under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable, or Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is non-bailable, particularly given the allegation that the petitioner lacked a proper public service vehicle license. The Court held that, at the pre-trial stage, the offence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was prima facie attracted. The Court emphasized that determining whether the lack of a specific license elevated the offence to Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required a trial and the recording of evidence, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that bail should not be denied based on disputed factual allegations that require trial determination.
- Is an offence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
- Should a court conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence at the pre-arrest bail stage?
- Does the lack of a public service vehicle license automatically elevate a road accident case from Section 320 to Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 320, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 505 dated 26.9.2008 registered u/S. 320 PPC at PS Sadar Samundari on the complaint of Muhammad Sharif with the allegation that the petitioner while driving bus No, JA/0081 rashly and negligently collided with motorcycle No, 9627/FDR as a result of which Ghulam Hussain and Faisal-ur-Rehman sustained injuries and died at the spot.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the most offence u/S. 320 PPC is made out, which is bailable and as to who was negligent in the accident will be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence; that mala fide of the police is crystal clear that they ,are going to alter the offence u/S. 322 PPC only to make it a case of non-bailable offence, which even otherwise is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the petitioner may be allowed pre-arrest bail. Reliance has been placed on Syed Asif Mateen Zaidi and 3 others vs. The State (2008 P.Cr.LJ. 125 Karachi).
3. On the other hand the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the petitioner did not possess PSV licence and was not authorized to drive a bus, thus offence u/S. 322 PPC is very much attracted against the petitioner, who was responsible of killing two young chaps and is not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail as there was no ulterior motive for false implication of the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly it was a case of road accident and from the facts and circumstances of the case offence u/S. 320 PPC is prima facie attracted, which is bailable. The petitioner was having HTV hence and whether he was not authorized to drive a bus or on that account offence u/S. 322 PPC would attract is a question to be determined by the learned trial. At this stage deeper appreciation of the evidence is not allowed. Hence this application is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 2.12.2008 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi) of this Court.