KALEEM ULLAH vs The STATE and another
This criminal petition arises out of orders passed by the lower courts declining post-arrest bail to the accused Kaleemullah in case F.I.R. No. 14 dated 17-1-2013 registered under Sections 279 and 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gomal University, D.I.Khan, relating to a fatal traffic accident. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail where he is charged with causing death by negligence while driving a vehicle without a valid driving licence. The Peshawar High Court held that the offence under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is non-bailable, the accused is prima facie connected to the crime through eyewitness accounts and his own statement admitting to driving without a licence, and therefore he is not entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that driving without a valid licence resulting in a fatal accident is a serious matter involving non-bailable offences disentitling the accused to the concession of bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing death by negligence while driving without a valid licence?
- Does the lack of an initial nomination in the F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to bail when subsequently nominated through a supplementary statement and eyewitness accounts?
- Is an offence under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable or non-bailable?
- Section 279, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J --Aggrieved of the orders dated 1-2-2013 and 22-1-2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, D.I.Khan and the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, D.I.Khan respectively whereby his bail petitions were declined, the accused/petitioner Kaleemullah has filed the instant petition for the same relief in case F.I.R. No,14 dated 17-1-2013 registered under. Sections 279/322, P.P.C. At Police Station Gomal University, D.I.Khan.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17-1-2013 at 50 hours, the complainant Muhammad Ramzan lodged the report in the emergency ward of civil hospital, D.I.Khan to the effect that on the night of 17-1-2013, he was present in his house when informed that his nephew namely, Muhammad Salim had met an accident and was being taken to the hospital in injured condition. On arrival at the hospital, he found his nephew lying dead. On inquiry, he came to know that Muhammad Salim who was employed at toll plaza of Dera-Darya Khan bridge was present on duty when at about 1215 hours, Truck No,E-1958/D.I.Khan coming_ from Bhakkar side driven by unknown person rashly and negligently hit him with which he got injured and succumbed to the injuries enroute to the hospital.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely charged; that in the initial report, the petitioner was not charged but was charged subsequently on 17-1-2013 and that too, without disclosing any source of information by the complainant; that section 279, P.P.C. Is bailable while except the payment of diyat, no specific punishment has been provided in section 322, P.P.C. And in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned D.A.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and supported the impugned orders on the grounds as enumerated therein.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. As per the record, though in the initial report, the petitioner was not charged by the complainant, but the latter recorded his supplementary statement on 17-1-2013 and nominated the petitioner for the commission of the offence. The occurrence is supported by the eyewitnesses employed at the toll plaza. The petitioner also recorded his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. And admitted that he was cleaner of the truck and was driving the same at the time of occurrence. Driving a truck by the petitioner without having a license to drive was an unlawful act which had caused the death of an innocent person. Even he made good his escape from the scene after the commission of the offence and was apprehended later on. The offence under section 322, P.P.C. Being non-bailable, the petitioner cannot claim bail as of right. It needs no reiteration that discretion in bail matters has to be exercised judiciously. Of late, vehicles driven by persons without any valid licence has become a menacing phenomenon to reckon with. It is on account of such reckless individuals that accidents have become a routine affair with loss of precious human lives. Such incidents are reported both in the print and electronic media with its gory details. It is high time that the licences are properly .Checked and scrutinized by the traffic police and the delinquents be taken to task so as to ward off tragedies on the roads.
7. Taking a tentative assessm ent of the available record, the accused/petitioner is prima facie involved in the commission of the offence and is not entitled to the concession of bail.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.
9. Any observations made in the order being tentative in nature should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the A learned trial Court.