Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 168/B of 1987, decided on 30th March, 1987.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304, 338 &427‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Offence whether bailable‑ ‑Accused bus driver allegedly causing accident by negligent driving‑‑Accused issued a valid driving licence‑‑Facts showing a case of accident‑‑None of witnesses giving approximate speed at which accused was driving at time of accident‑‑Case prima facie appearing to be accident and falling under S. 304‑A, P.P.C. being bailable, bail was granted in circumstances.

Khawaja Naveed Ahmed for Applicant.

Rashid Rizvi and Shahadat Awan for the Complainant.

S. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.‑G. for the State.

The applicant is facing trial under section 304/338/427, P.P.C., before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the applicant Muhammad Altaf was driver of Bus No. 845‑807. That on 5‑1‑1987, A.S.I. Muhammad Siddiq lodged report, inter alia stating therein that one Mr. Siraj Hussain informed him at 11‑30 p.m. that the Bus No. 845‑807, coming from Steel Mills side has collided with a car bearing No. 205‑170, both coming from opposite direction of city and had also hit a Pick Up No. GP 3151. The occupants of the car had received injuries. On receipt of this information the A.S.I. proceeded to the spot and recorded the statements of eye‑witnesses, and then went to Jinnah Hospital, where he was informed by Mst. Rubina that on 4‑1‑1987 at 11‑30 p.m. accused Muhammad Altaf was driving Bus No. 845‑807 with negligence and had hit the Car No. 205 170, and Pick Up No. GP‑315. Both the vehicles were damaged and passengers were injured. Qaiser and Erum had died on their way to Jinnah Hospital, while Mst. Saira had died in Jinnah Hospital. Mst. Halima and Afsar Begum had received injuries. The A.S.I.P. registered the case under sections 304, 338, 427, P.P.C., arrested the present applicant and after necessary investigation challaned him before the Court.

The applicant moved bail application before the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi, but the same was rejected by order, dated 2‑2‑1987.

I have heard Mr. Khawaja Naveed, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Shahadat Awan, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Rashid Tariq Khan learned counsel appearing for the State.

The contention of Mr. Khawaja Naveed learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a senior driver and has brilliant record of service. He has produced a certificate, dated 15‑1‑1985 awarded to the applicant by Chairman Pakistan Steel Mills for his services rendered by him. He has also produced the certificate of Assistant Post Master Saddar showing that the applicant has been working as Driver and was issued licence in 1958. He has further contended that it is a case of unfortunate accident and offence if any will fall under section 304‑A, P.P.C., which is of course punishable for 10 years, but the schedule having not been amendment, the offence under section 304‑A, P.P.C., still remains to be bailable.

Mr. Shahadat Awan learned counsel appearing for the complainant has contended that the applicant was driving the Bus negligently and number of persons have died due to his negligence. In fact the applicant had no licence and the licence belongs to one Muhammad Alam, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.

Mr. Rashid Tariq Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that no doubt the schedule of Cr.P.C. has not been amended but still the offence is serious one and, therefore; the applicant is not entitled to bail.

I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the police papers. I called the Post Master, Post Office, Hotel Metropole, Karachi to verify, whether the applicant was holding any driving licence, who stated that the applicant was issued driving licence No. 80875 and there was a mistake in writing his name while renewing the licence it was wrongly mentioned Muhammad Alam. The facts of the case clearly show that it was a case of an accident, and none of the witnesses has given approximate speed with which the applicant was driving the vehicle. The schedule regarding the sentence provided for a particular offence, having not been amended, therefore, the offence under section 304‑A, P.P.C. still remains bailable. It appears prima facie to be a case of an accident and, therefore, I direct that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

S.A./M‑86/K Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.