Drunken driving a grave menace, not a mere lapse: HC

Calling drunken driving a “grave menace to public safety”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that it is far more than a mere lapse. The Bench warned that any leniency in such cases would embolden reckless drivers and strike at the very root of societal order.

Dismissing a third plea for bail filed by a 70-year-old driver accused of crushing to death a young MBBS student, Justice Sumeet Goel asserted: “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.”

The court asserted that such conduct created the potential for fatal accidents, loss of invaluable human lives, grievous injuries, and damage to property. “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 strikes at the very root of societal order,” Justice Goel observed.

Referring to the paramount importance of deterrence, the Bench made it clear: “It is well settled that individual liberty, though cherished as a fundamental right, cannot be stretched to such an extent that it jeopardises the collective safety of public at large. The law, therefore, mandates strict treatment of such offences, for any leniency extended in such cases would send a wrong signal.”

The matter was placed before Justice Goel’s Bench after the accused filed his third regular bail petition in a case registered on November 1, 2023, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and other offences under Sections 279, 304, and 427 of the IPC, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, at a police station in Patiala district.

According to the FIR, the petitioner, while driving in a drunken state, rammed his vehicle into a parked car, crushing to death the complainant’s son, a medical student, on the spot. The defence argued that the petitioner was a senior citizen, around 68 years old at the time of occurrence, and deserved the concession of bail.

The State, however, opposed the plea contending that the petitioner was caught immediately but managed to flee, and his release could influence or intimidate witnesses. The gravity of the offence, the State maintained, weighed against granting regular bail.

Upholding the State’s contention, Justice Goel concluded: “By creating a hazardous situation on public roads, drunken driving undermines the very fabric of public safety and order. Grant of bail in such matters, if exercised casually, would not only dilute the seriousness of the offence but also have a deleterious effect of encouraging similar reckless conduct.”

Before parting, the Bench added that public interest demanded a strict judicial response. “This court, while dealing with the petition in hand, is constrained to bear in mind the paramount consideration of public interest and deterrence. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.”