Muhammad Latif versus The State etc (bail denied to individual who ran over a police officer with his truck)

Case No. Crl. Misc. No.156603-B of 2018
LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

The petitioner, through this petition, sought post arrest bail for a case registered against him in June 2017 under sections sections 324, 353, 334, 186 & 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in Hafizabad. A similar petition filed earlier by the petitioner had been dismissed by the court.

The petitioner had been alleged to have intentionally driven his truck over Muhammad Aslam (an assistant sub-inspector police) who was on duty, in his uniform. This occurred while many other officials along with the victim, Muhammad Aslam, tried to stop the petitioner in order to inspect his driving license. The petitioner did not stop his truck due to which he was followed by the police officers on their bikes. During this chase, the victim overtook the truck, stopped before it and motioned to the petitioner to stop. The petitioner, with the intention to kill Muhammad Aslam, did not stop and drove his vehicle over the victim, as a result of which he lost his right leg.

The court, after hearing both sides found that the petitioner was arrested after he tried to escape again after the incident had occurred. It found no evidence of the petitioner’s argument that he was not the driver, but the conductor of the vehicle and was detained by the police officers after the driver had escaped from the crime scene. The court stated that, in the absence of evidence, it was not believable that police officers, including the one who had been injured, would substitute the real culprit with an innocent conductor who was not driving the vehicle.

The petitioner argued that the incident otherwise fell under the purview of section 337G of the PPC which was a bailable offence for which he should be granted post arrest bail. The court dismissed this as being ‘misconceived’ as this section applied where ‘criminal intent’ was absent, which was not the case with the current petition as such an intent had been mentioned in the FIR and statement of the eyewitnesses. In addition to this, other jurisdictions were referred to where causing death or injury by using a vehicle to drive over another had been termed to be intentional. Also, the court stated that the benefit of section 337G PPC could not be claimed by the petitioner who was acting illegally by driving a truck without a driving license. The specifics of the petitioner’s intent while committing the crime was left to the trial court’s jurisdiction.

The court pointed out the discrepancy in the petitioner’s arguments where on one hand he stated that he was not driving the truck but was instead, just the conductor and on the other hand, where he sought the benefit of section 337G PPC. It also stated that it could not encourage or allow the use of vehicles as weapons against officers on duty, whose job it was to ensure the safety of public at large.

The petition was therefore dismissed.