The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly condemned drunken driving, calling it a “grave menace” that strikes at the root of societal order, while rejecting the bail plea of a 70-year-old truck driver accused of causing the death of a 24-year-old MBBS student.
Justice Sumeet Goel, in an order passed on September 25, observed that any leniency in cases of drunken driving would send a “wrong signal” and embolden others to indulge in such hazardous conduct.
“The offence of drunken driving cannot be viewed in isolation as a mere act of mischief or lapse on the part of the offender. It constitutes a grave menace to public safety and strikes at the very root of societal order. A person who chooses to drive under the influence of alcohol does not merely endanger his own life but recklessly imperils the lives of innocent citizens using the road…undermining the very fabric of public safety and order,” the court observed.
The case dates back to November 2023 when truck driver Jagtar Singh allegedly rammed into a parked car at high speed on the Sangrur-Patiala road. The impact crushed the complainant’s son, a young MBBS student, who died instantly. Singh was booked under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (including Section 304) and the Motor Vehicles Act at the Pasyana police station in Patiala.
The FIR recorded that Singh was in a heavily drunken state at the time of the accident.
During the hearing, Singh’s counsel argued that the accused, aged around 70, had been in custody for over a year and deserved the concession of bail. It was further contended that while the FIR alleged Singh intentionally struck the complainant’s car, no motive was mentioned for such an act.
Opposing the plea, the state counsel stressed that the allegations were of a serious nature and warned that if released, the accused might influence or threaten witnesses. The prosecution also pointed out that 15 witnesses were yet to be examined.
The court agreed with the state’s stance, noting that the allegations amounted to culpable conduct rather than mere negligence. “Though the challan has been presented and 15 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, the apprehension expressed by the State that the petitioner, if released on bail, may attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses cannot be brushed aside,” Justice Goel said.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled that the petitioner did not deserve regular bail. “The law mandates strict treatment of such offences, for any leniency extended in such cases would send a wrong signal and embolden others to indulge in similar hazardous conduct,” the order said.
