LIAQAT ALI Versus State
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- The petitioner, Liaqat Ali seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.112/13, dated 15.2.2013, under sections 302, 324, 427, 201, P.P.C., registered at Police Station City Arifwala (Pakpattan Sharif), on the complaint of Ghulam Rasool 6993/C.
2. The complainant has alleged in the FIR (supra) that he along with Rana Tariq Mehmood SI, a traffic sergeant, was present at Arifwala Lorry Adda, Pakpattan Road at 4.00 p.m. on 14.2.2013, when a loaded Bedford-truck was seen approaching them from Sahiwal side, being rashly, negligently and recklessly driven by someone; Tariq Mehmood SI signalled it to stop and the driver stopped it on the edge of the road; he alighted the truck and came toward Tariq Mehmood SI, who inquired about his documents; the driver took it ill and exchanged hot words with him; he hurriedly boarded the truck again, drove it speedily and knocked down Tariq Mehmood SI, due to which he fell off from his official motorcycle LEG-5481 and received injuries over his face and left arm; motorcycle was badly damaged and its Motorola Set was also broken; he along with his companions shifted the injured to Civil Hospital, Arifwala for treatment of his injuries.
3. Tariq Mehmood SI could not survive the incident and he died on 23.2.2013, which led to insertion of section 302, P.P.C. in this case.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the FIR case was initially registered for offences under sections 324, 427, P.P.C., but at a later stage, the offence under section, 302 P.P.C. was added to it, when ill-fated police official succumbed to the injuries on 23.2.2013. The investigating officer also added offence under section 201, P.P.C. on 20.9.2016 as the killing-machine (truck) had allegedly been sold by the petitioner in complete knocked, down (CKD) condition to different persons. The petitioner allegedly flew into a rage when he was required to show his documents by the dutiful traffic sergeant. He is alleged to have intentionally hit the motorcycle-seated police official, who sustained grievous injuries during the incident, which lastly proved fatal as he died eight days thereafter. The necropsy report revealed that he succumbed to the face and head injuries. We find little substance in the argument of the petitioner's learned counsel that it may be treated a case of Qatl-i-Khata, punishable under section 319, P.P.C., as nature of allegation and evidence available altogether suggested otherwise.
4(sic). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing with an identical situation in Majid Naeem v. The State and another, reported as 2011 SCMR 1227, dismissed post-arrest bail application of Majid Naeem accused with the observation that "every act of rash or negligent driving by a person neither can be condoned nor the discretionary power of the Court can be exercised in his favour because through his act of rash and negligent driving, a man of ordinary prudent can understand the consequences of his act that a large number of people would lose their lives; such conduct of accused person has also to be kept in mind. Such act of driving in busy bazaar or in a car race where hundreds of people are present or spectators, the crushing to death of large number of persons is not just "rash or negligent" driving but would be a case of "extreme rash and extreme negligent" driving." It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said case that "At present, in view of the direct charge against the petitioner that he was driving the motorcar by taking part in the car race and the said car went out of control because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner as alleged, resulting in death of five persons and injuries to many others and that because even the offence under section 322, P.P.C. is not bailable and grant of bail is a discretionary relief, which cannot be claimed as of right, we are of the considered view that, prima-facie, because of nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the evidence so far collected during the investigation, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail."
5. The petitioner remained an absconder for about three and a half years and told nothing to the investigating officer, as to where he had been in the intervening time. There is no cavil at the proposition that unexplained longstanding abscondence would cause loss of some of the normal rights guaranteed under the substantive law as well as the procedural law to the accused of such a category and the petitioner's case is no exception. His case is covered by the prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept this application, which is accordingly dismissed.
WA/L-2/L Bail refused.