Akbar vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The applicant is the accused in Crime No.63 of 2021 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad, for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

On 21.02.2021, at about 11.45 AM, the applicant was travelling in a car along the public road towards Mannarkkad, in a rash and negligent manner with the knowledge that in case he drives the car at such speed in such a reckless manner, it likely to cause the death of persons using the road and as a result of that negligence and rashness and with the knowledge of the applicant, his car hit a motor cycle on which two persons were riding and it resulted in the death of both of them. The motor cycle was being driven by a Civil Police Officer. The manner in which both of them were thrown away from the motor cycle indicates the speed at which the applicant was allegedly driving the car. And, therefore, an offence under Section 304 IPC was registered against him. The applicant states that the allegations are not true and that it was at the most a negligent act, attracting an offence under Section 304A IPC and not a culpable homicide as projected by the prosecution. Merely, because one of the persons, who died in the accident was in the Police, a CPO, the investigation has proceeded in the manner as if the applicant is guilty of culpable homicide. He had no knowledge or intend to commit the alleged offence. And, hence, he seeks bail.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation. He was arrested on the date of accident and has been in custody since then. Further incarceration of the applicant may not be of any purpose for the investigation. The witnesses have all been questioned and the investigation has progressed well. And, therefore, detention of the applicant merely because there is an allegation that he has committed an offence of culpable homicide may not be necessary. Hence, the applicant seeks bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for bail stating that the applicant belongs to Palakkad District and he is well versed with the manner in which the roads are lying in that locality. With that knowledge, he allegedly consumed alcohol and drove the vehicle at break neck speed resulting in the accident and knowledge can definitely be attributed to him. Because, if a person drives a vehicle on such a road in a drunken state, there is every possibility that it may cause the death of a human being using the road. That is how the car allegedly hit a motor cycle and caused instantaneous death of both the riders. The learned Public Prosecutor admits that offence under Section 185 of the MV Act is not attracted, because the blood sample did not contain traces of ethyl alcohol. But, at the same time, it is submitted that the examination could be done only after 12 hours and the immediate medical record of the applicant shows that he had consumed alcohol but was not under the influence of alcohol and it is also stated that the co-passengers in the car have given a statement that they have stopped the car at 4 places to consume alcohol. And, therefore, the rashness of the act is well projected by the evidence so far collected by the prosecution. And, therefore, he does not deserve to be released on bail.

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that the applicant is not a criminal having a criminal record and he is not involved in any other crime. This being a bail court, I am not inclined to go deep into a discussion to unravel whether the applicant is actually guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. That would influence the trial court during trial. And, therefore, I am not expressing myself on that point. But, at the same time, it has to be stated that there are no medical records indicating towards the drunkenness of the applicant, apart form the fact that he had consumed alcohol. And, therefore it cannot be said that he was driving the car in a drunken state. But, the fact stated by the prosecution that the examination could be conducted only after 12 hours and therefore, the exact quantity of alcohol in his blood would not be ascertain with procession. I leave that to be decided by the trial court during trial after producing evidence. It would suffice to say that there is no necessity for further detention of the applicant. He is not likely to flee from justice and is willing to co-operate with the investigation.

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

(ii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

The bail application is allowed.