A judicial magistrate on Monday dismissed an application filed by the woman SUV driver, involved in the Karsaz traffic accident, seeking post-arrest bail in a drug case.
On August 19, a speeding luxury car, driven by the woman, rammed into three motorcycles and another car before overturning on Karsaz Road, killing Imran Arif and his daughter Amna and injuring two others.
The suspect has been booked in two separate cases — one lodged under rash driving and manslaughter charges, while the other under Section 11 (drinking liable to tazir) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (PEHO), 1979 after her medical report confirmed that she was under the influence of methamphetamine, also known as ice or crystal meth.
She was granted bail by a sessions court in the main case last week after legal heirs of the victims submitted affidavits, stating that they had pardoned the suspect in the name of Allah Almighty and would have no objection if she was released on bail.
On Monday, Judicial Magistrate (East) Mohammad Raza Ansari announced the order he had reserved earlier after hearing arguments from both the defence and prosecution sides in the drug case.
He observed that the applicant’s counsel couldn’t satisfy the court about the inapplicability of Section 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 in the current case. The PEHO is not confined to liquor only but includes other intoxicating substances as well, he added.
The magistrate noted that the suspect was booked primarily on charges of rash and negligent driving after the deadly accident and the second case was lodged after a chemical examiner’s report detected methamphetamine in her urine sample.
About the defence side’s argument that the drug was not found in her blood sample and in urine sample only, he said the report was based on the opinion of a medical expert and that it was not necessary for the drug to be found in both blood and urine samples at the same time as the time period for its presence in blood and urine may wary.
He further mentioned that no-objection affidavits submitted by the victims’ heirs had no legal weight in this case that is a ‘state case’. “It is also valuable to add that the crystal ice (methamphetamine) consumption is the new evil gripping its roots in our society, especially in young generation; it is the need of the hour to eradicate this menace from the society and its spread must be nipped in the bud before it destroys the whole generation,” the magistrate noted in his written order.
“Admittedly, the applicant/accused is a well-educated lady, having good sense of living standards as well as of law, yet it is indeed surprising and disappointing for a person who being a well-educated drive a vehicle recklessly /negligently without license under the influence of drug or intoxication, which resulted into the death of two innocent people and left others injured.”
The magistrate said that the grant of bail is the discretion of the court, but when a case affects society then the court should be mindful to exercise the discretion with great deal of vigilance and restraint. Thus, he ruled that the suspect failed to make out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. Subsequently, the applicant’s lawyer challenged the magistrate’s order before a sessions court.