MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner has been booked for the offence under sections 427/337 (N), 337/279, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 16/2016 dated 11-05-2016 registered at Police Station Yasin.
2. The brief history of the case is that on 11-05-2016, on SGC Zaheer-ud-Din lodged a report in Police Station Yasin stating therein that on the fateful day, he was standing on the main road and he saw that teacher Akbar Hussain who was riding his own motor cycle CD-70 appeared on the scene after attending his school duty. In the meanwhile the petitioner came from opposite side, who was driving his motor bike registered No. RIK-9582 and because of over speeding the petitioner could not control his bike and both the bikes collided. Akbar Hussain received serious injuries on his head and face. He and the petitioner both were removed to civil hospital, where injured Akbar Hussain succumbed to the injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and there is no worth reliance evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. The learned counsel further submitted that all the other offences are bail-able, while punishment provided for the offence under section 322, P.P.C. is only diyat. No punishment is provided for the said offence and diyat does not attract the prohibition contained in section 497 Cr.P.C. He prayed that the petitioner be allowed bail in the above circumstances. The learned counsel relied on 2000 PCr.LJ 203 and 2005 YLR 1968.
4. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the case is not so simple as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner took a value able life of a school teacher who left behind a widow and minor kids, who will have to live and die every day of their life as they have no alternate source of income. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contended that the petitioner was not having any valid driving license and as evident from the FIR he was so rashly and negligently driving, which resulted in death of a young and educated school teacher.
The offence is non bailable and the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR with specific allegations of rash and negligent driving. There is ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and he is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. Having heard the parties at length and perused the record of the case. The petitioner is directly charged in the FIR with specific allegation of rash and negligent driving and because of his rash and negligent driving a valuable able life was lost. The petitioner was not in possession of a driving license. The act of the petitioner cannot be ignored, which made a young lady widow and her minor children orphan. Although the offence under section 322, P.P.C. provides punishment of only diyat but at the same time it has been declared "non bail" as per second schedule of Cr.P.C. There is wisdom and analogy behind the declaring of the offence as non-bailable, which will be discussed in any other case or at any appropriate time. Further bail is a discretion, which is granted/refused according to the peculiar circumstances of a case in given circumstances.
6. The nut-shell of the above discussion is that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and at this stage he is not entitled for the concession of bail, which is accordingly dismissed.