Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9140
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
TEJA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 3724 / 2025
Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, Mr. Ramniwas Choudhary, Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
High-speed driving does not automatically imply rashness or negligence; context must be considered in determining culpability.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.129/2024 for offences under Sections 281, 125 and 105 of BNS - The petitioner was accused of driving at high speed and causing the death of a toll plaza worker - The court found that driving at high speed does not automatically imply rashness or negligence without considering other factors - The court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that the trial court should determine the merits of the case based on evidence. (Paras 1, 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was involved in an incident where he allegedly hit a toll plaza worker while driving at high speed, resulting in the worker's death. The petitioner argued that there was no motive and that the deceased unexpectedly entered the lane. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of the petitioner influencing witnesses or fleeing justice, allowing bail while emphasizing that the trial court would determine the merits of the case. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was driving in a rash and negligent manner, which would determine the appropriateness of bail. (Paras 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that high-speed driving alone does not equate to rashness or negligence without considering the context, and the trial court must evaluate the evidence presented. (Paras 7)
Result: The second bail application is allowed.
Order
08/05/2025
1. This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C . (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.129/2024 registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, Jodhpur City East for the offences under Sections 281, 125 and 105 of BNS.
2. As per the prosecution, on 20.10.2024, the petitioner, who was driving a Swift car bearing registration No.RJ-22-CA-7215 at a very high speed hit Deepak, who was discharging his duties at Toll Plaza situated at Dangiawas Bypass. Learned counsel submitted that in the alleged incident, Deepak sustained severe injuries and was immediately brought to AIIMS Hospital, Jodhpur where he succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment.
3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, statements of Dinesh (PW.1) and Saurabh (PW.2), learned counsel contended that the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. It was submitted that there was no barrier on the emergency lane/line of the Toll Plaza at the relevant time and as a matter of fact, the deceased suddenly came on the lane/line due to which he got hit by the Swift car being driven by the petitioner.
4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the statements of the material prosecution witness/eye-witness have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or tampering with the evidence; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the challan papers and the statements of Saurabh (PW.2) recorded before the competent criminal Court clearly indicate that on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner drove the Swift car in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed only with a view to save Toll Tax, at the Toll Plaza. When the deceased tried to stop him, the petitioner intentionally hit him with his car due to which the deceased sustained several injuries and died while undergoing treatment at the Hospital. Learned Public Prosecutor thus implored the Court that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that as per the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred as a result of petitioner driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed. In the opinion of this Court, though the witness- PW.2 deposed that the petitioner was driving the car at a very high speed but the same cannot lead to the conclusion that there was any element of he being rash and negligent in driving. The petitioner driving at a high speed does not/cannot in itself, mean that petitioner was acting in rash and negligent manner as other factual considerations of whether it was a busy road or not and/or whether the petitioner had taken due care and caution to avert the dangers of driving at a high speed or not, will come into picture for determining the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged incident.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court prima facie finds that the question as to whether petitioner was driving the car at high speed in a rash and negligent manner or not is to be determined by the learned trial Court on the basis of the documentary and oral evidences produced before it during the course of trial. This Court also prima facie finds that the learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the remaining
