The Karnataka High Court has expressed grave concern over the absence of stringent legal provisions to curb the dangerous stunt of ‘wheeling’, urging the State to introduce tougher laws to address the growing menace.
Wheeling involves two-wheeler riders lifting the front wheel while in motion, a practice that poses severe risks to both the riders and the general public. Justice V. Srishananda, while hearing a bail application of an accused involved in a wheeling incident, noted that existing laws under the Motor Vehicles Act are insufficient to deter such reckless behavior.
“Currently, wheeling can only be prosecuted under laws pertaining to negligent or rash driving, which are bailable offences. These provisions fall short of enabling effective action against such hazardous acts,” Justice Srishananda observed.
The judge pointed out that when the Motor Vehicles Act was enacted, lawmakers may not have anticipated such dangerous stunts. “In light of the alarming increase in such incidents, it is the bounden duty of the State and enforcement agencies to introduce necessary statutory provisions and adopt stringent measures to suppress this dangerous trend,” he said.
The Court warned that wheeling not only endangers riders and pillion passengers but also threatens public safety and disrupts public order. “Young motorcyclists wrongly equate wheeling with bravery, unaware of the life-threatening consequences,” the judge added.
The observations came during the rejection of a bail plea filed by a man accused of performing wheeling with two pillion riders in October 2024. Police reports stated that the stunt ended in a crash after officers tried to intercept the vehicle. The accused allegedly assaulted the officers, injured them, and damaged government property by throwing a police mobile phone into a canal.
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated due to a personal dispute with the police. However, the Court was not persuaded, particularly in view of the prosecution’s submission that the petitioner was a repeat offender and had acted aggressively during the confrontation.
“Mere filing of the charge sheet cannot, by itself, justify bail. The petitioner is free to approach the appropriate court for bail if there is any significant change in circumstances,” Justice Srishananda said in his ruling.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sadiq N. Goodwala, while Government Pleader Girija S. Hiremath appeared for the State.
