Drunken Driving Case: High Court Denies Bail To Haryana Cop Accused Of Running Over Woman
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined regular bail to a serving Haryana Police official accused of causing the death of a 25-year-old woman by driving a car in an intoxicated condition and running over her after striking the e-rickshaw in which she was travelling.Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "the petitioner is a serving police official, who is expected to uphold the rule of law...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined regular bail to a serving Haryana Police official accused of causing the death of a 25-year-old woman by driving a car in an intoxicated condition and running over her after striking the e-rickshaw in which she was travelling.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "the petitioner is a serving police official, who is expected to uphold the rule of law and exhibit a higher degree of responsibility while discharging his duties as well as in his personal conduct. Prima facie, the allegations depict a complete disregard for public safety by driving a motor vehicle on a public road under the influence of alcohol. Such conduct, if ultimately established, cannot be viewed lightly, particularly when it has allegedly resulted in the loss of a young human life."
The Court dismissed the second bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, observing that the accusation was not one of rash or negligent driving simpliciter.
It noted that the Forensic Science Laboratory report prima facie recorded the presence of 115 mg of alcohol in the petitioner's blood, "thereby indicating that he was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol."
The prosecution case arose from the statement of complainant Harsh Bajaj, who alleged that on 11.02.2026 he and his sister Nikita Bajaj boarded an e-rickshaw at Ambala Cantt. to travel to their residence at Model Town, Ambala City. At about 9:10 p.m., near Kali Paltan Bridge on the National Highway, a Verna car allegedly being driven rashly and negligently struck the e-rickshaw from behind, causing it to lose balance. Nikita Bajaj fell onto the road and was allegedly run over by the offending vehicle.
It was further alleged that the driver attempted to flee but, after colliding with the roadside railing, was apprehended by the complainant and a fellow passenger. He disclosed his identity as Amit Kumar, was allegedly wearing Haryana Police uniform, and was allegedly under the influence of alcohol. The injured woman was declared brought dead at Civil Hospital.
The FIR was registered under Sections 281 and 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 279 and 304 Part II IPC) and Sections 185, 181(3) and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An earlier bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.05.2026.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had initially been granted bail for the offence under Section 106 BNS, and that upon addition of Section 105 BNS he appeared before the Magistrate, joined investigation and was remanded to judicial custody. It was contended that the petitioner did not abscond and in fact assisted in shifting the injured to hospital, and that the prosecution case at its highest disclosed only rash and negligent driving.
Reliance was also placed on proceedings instituted by the legal representatives of the deceased under the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the accident was described as one arising out of rash and negligent driving.
Senior Deputy Advocate General Karan Veer Singh, assisted by counsel for the complainant, opposed the plea, submitting that the allegations disclosed a grave offence resulting in the death of a young woman, and that the FSL report showed the petitioner was driving in a heavily intoxicated condition despite being a serving police official.
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on the claim petition, the Court held that recitals contained in Motor Vehicles Act proceedings "neither determine the nature of criminal liability nor curtail the jurisdiction of the criminal Court to independently assess whether the allegations attract the ingredients of the offences alleged in the present FIR."
On the plea that the petitioner had shifted the injured to hospital and had not fled the spot, the Court observed that these were matters of defence to be examined by the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, and that at this stage such pleas could not dilute the gravity of the allegations.
Reiterating the limited scope of bail jurisdiction, the Court said it was not expected to meticulously evaluate the evidence or record any conclusive finding on guilt or innocence, but only to examine whether the accusations were prima facie supported by the material collected during investigation.
Noting that drunken driving had become "a matter of grave public concern," the Court said Courts are expected to adopt an approach that balances the right to personal liberty with "the larger societal interest in ensuring road safety and maintaining public confidence in the administration of criminal justice."
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana
Appearances: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner;
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana; Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.