P&H HC Bails Man Accused In Drunk-Driving Crash That Killed 3, Citing Completed Probe And Nearly 5 Months In Custody

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 105 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, while driving a Brezza car at high speed and under the influence of alcohol, the petitioner struck a motorcycle, causing the deaths of its three occupants, and then collided with another car

The petitioner contended that the allegations disclosed, at most, rash or negligent driving under Section 106 BNS, and that the requisite knowledge for Section 105 BNS had not been established

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the incident and the petitioner’s alleged intoxication

The petitioner had been in custody since 9 June 2026; investigation was complete and the final report had been filed

Section 105 BNS applies where culpable homicide is committed with the intention or knowledge specified in that provision; Section 106(1) BNS concerns death caused by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide

Under Section 24 BNS, voluntary intoxication does not excuse an accused; the person is treated as having the knowledge they would have had if sober, but the prosecution must still establish the requisite knowledge from the circumstances

In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, the Supreme Court recognised that dangerous or negligent driving may amount to culpable homicide where the required knowledge is established, while emphasising that each case turns on its facts

In State through P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda, (2012) 8 SCC 450, the Court held that the prosecution must prove the accused knew the act was likely to cause death; the circumstances in that case included intoxication, high speed, and driving without a licence

For bail, the gravity of the allegations is relevant but is not, by itself, sufficient to justify continued custody pending trial

The Court treated the question whether the conduct fell under Section 105 or Section 106 BNS as dependent on evidence to be assessed at trial, including the speed and manner of driving, road and traffic conditions, visibility, and nature of impact

The FIR alleged high-speed and negligent driving after alcohol consumption, but the State’s assertion that the collision was intentional was unsupported by any stated motive or prior connection with the deceased.

The status report also did not specify the quantity of alcohol in the petitioner’s blood or allege that he attempted to flee

The Court therefore declined to determine the applicable offence finally at the bail stage.

In assessing custody, it noted that the investigation was complete, the petitioner had no other FIR against him, no apprehension of absconding or interference with evidence was expressed, and the trial was at an early stage and likely to take time

It left open the prosecution’s right to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner became involved in a subsequent case, and clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial