The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday granted bail to a suspect in the August 19 Karsaz accident case, noting that the matter requires further inquiry.
The female suspect was arrested following the Karsaz accident, which resulted in the deaths of a man and his daughter, and injuries to three others. She faces charges of driving under the influence of drugs.
The applicant’s lawyers, Farooq H Naik and Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, argued that the first information report (FIR) in the drugs case was based solely on a chemical report indicating the presence of methamphetamine (ice) in her system, which is unrelated to the accident.
They pointed out that the applicant had already been granted bail in the main case after the legal heirs of the two victims and two injured individuals submitted affidavits stating they had no objections to her bail.
They contended that since the woman was charged in the main case under the Pakistan Penal Code’s sections 320, 337-G, 279 and 427, read with Section 322, and Section 100 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 at the same police station, a second FIR was unnecessary and prohibited by the superior courts.
They argued that only one FIR should be filed for a single incident, and implicating the applicant in a second FIR is malicious and illegal. They requested bail, noting that the main case had been settled out of court, and the suspect had been in custody since her arrest. The additional prosecutor general strongly opposed the bail, supporting the sessions court’s decision to deny it.
After hearing the arguments, a single SHC bench headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha noted that the case has attracted significant media attention, much of which is unfavourable to the applicant, and that public outcry may have prejudiced her trial.
The court emphasised that judges are not influenced by external factors, and decide cases based solely on the law as well as the facts presented. The court observed that the case against the applicant had been registered under Section 11 of the Prevention of Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, which pertains to alcohol consumption and prescribes a maximum sentence of three years in prison.
The court questioned how the applicant can be charged under this law, given that the substance found in her body is a narcotic substance rather than alcohol, but it left this determination to the trial court.
The court noted that the maximum sentence for the offence charged is three years, and bail is generally granted in such cases unless exceptional circumstances exist. It found no exceptional circumstances in this case, especially since the complainants had already compromised in the main case, leading to the applicant’s acquittal in the accident case.
Additionally, said the court, reviewing the chemical reports indicates that the applicant’s blood sample contained no narcotics, sedatives, psychoactive substances or foreign compounds, but her urine sample tested positive for ice, revealing a contradiction between the two reports, which warrants further inquiry.
The court remarked that even if the applicant had consumed ice, it would likely have been a small amount, as a larger quantity would have resulted in an overdose. The court concluded that even if a case could be made under the narcotics law, the amount of ice detected in the applicant’s urine could not be determined, suggesting it was likely less than the threshold for a three-year sentence, which would qualify her for bail.
The court also considered the applicant’s circumstances, noting that she is a mother of three school-going children, including a young daughter, who need her support, as she had already spent six weeks in jail.
The court observed that a charge sheet had been filed against the applicant in the trial court, but charges had not yet been framed, indicating she was no longer needed for the investigation.
With 13 prosecution witnesses to be heard, the court acknowledged that recording their testimonies would take time, and said that according to trite law, denial of bail cannot be used as a form of punishment.
Ultimately, the court determined that the case required further inquiry, and granted bail to the accused in the amount of Rs1 million. The court clarified that its observations in the order are a tentative assessment and would not affect the trial, which should proceed expeditiously based on the evidence presented.