news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail to Matador driver | | He is facing charges for killing seven persons | |
Jammu, September, 16:- Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu Mr. Sanjay Dhar today rejected bail application of Pushpinder Singh Driver Matador No 7355/JK02, who killed seven persons on August 27, 2006 at Digiana Camp and Digiana Ashram.
CJM Jammu while rejecting the bail application of the accused after hearing Chief Prosecuting officer Mr. Maroof Ahmed Manhas appearing for the state, who opposed the bail application on the ground that act of the accused has resulted in strong public outcry against him and further contended the manner in which the accident occurred shows accused had the knowledge his such act is going to cause injury or death to others and Court also gone through the police report and case dairy. The allegation against the accused is that he drove the vehicle in high speed with rashness and negligence, this resulted in first accident which took place near Digiana Camp and in the said accident two pedestrians were killed. The accused instead of stopping the vehicle over there and enquiring about the welfare of those, who run over by the vehicle driven by him, drove away the vehicle from the spot at still higher speed and on wrong side of the road, on reaching near Digiana Ashram seven more persons were run over by the said vehicle out of which 5 persons died and two are struggling for their lives. This is not an ordinary type of an accident. The conduct of the accused in the whole chain of events is highly deplorable. After the first accident, the accused again indulge in over speeding and wrong side driving of vehicle unmindful of the fact that had already taken away precious life of two persons a few minutes back.
Court further said that pedestrians, who were hit by the vehicle, had just offered their prayers at Gurdwara and they were standing just outside the Gurdwara away from the road. Every road accident which resulted death of a person does not fall within purview of offence u/s 304-A RPC. For instance, if a vehicle driven rashly and negligently at high speed suffers and accident resulting in death of a pedestrian walking on deserted road, it may be a case falling within purview of section 304-A of RPC, but this case cannot be equated with an instance where a driver of vehicle drives the vehicle at a high-speed in a busy market and thereby mows down half a dozen people the occurrence may fall under the definition of section 304-A part II of RPC, which entails punishment up to 10 years of imprisonment.
The question of public interest, Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu Mr. Sanjay Dhar observed that people have reacted in a hostile manner to the act of the accused and they have even burnt down the vehicle in question. It is not ordinary type of road accident. In this case as many as nine persons have been hit by the same vehicle at two different places with in a span of few minutes, out of these nine persons, seven have already died and the other two are struggling for life. Thus by a single stroke accused has destroyed seven valuable lives and plunged seven different families into a pall of gloom. If the concession of bail is extended to the accused, it will enrage the public at large and they will loose faith in system. Court is of conscious of the fact that bail cannot refused to accused as a measure of punishment but at the same time public interest is one of the most important considerations for grant or refusal of bail. In the opinion of the Court public interest is not going to be served by enlarging the accused on bail. With these observations Court dismissed the bail application. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
