Shillong, Oct 16: The Meghalaya High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a case involving an alleged attempt to evade police checking that resulted in a police officer sustaining serious injuries, observing that a pillion rider cannot prima facie be held responsible for the actions of the person controlling the vehicle.
Additional Superintendent of Police (Traffic) Lovish Garg was hit by the scooter on September 18 when the driver refused to halt at a police checkpoint set up near Urkaliar.
A single bench of the Meghalaya High Court comprising Justice Wanlura Diengdoh granted bail subject to conditions that the accused shall not abscond or tamper with evidence or witnesses, shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called, shall not leave jurisdiction of Meghalaya during pendency of investigation without prior permission and shall execute personal bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the competent court.
Opposing the bail application, Public Prosecutor NG Shylla submitted that the scooter on which the accused was travelling as a pillion rider had evaded a police checkpoint before proceeding towards the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, when police personnel again signalled the scooter to stop, the rider attempted to flee.
During the incident, Garg, who tried to prevent the scooter from escaping, was allegedly dragged by the vehicle, suffering severe injuries that required hospitalisation for six days.
The prosecution argued that a prudent pillion rider would have advised the rider to stop when asked to do so by police. It was contended that the accused failed to exercise such diligence, making him complicit in the offence.
However, the court observed that, at first glance, a pillion rider cannot be held responsible for decisions concerning the control of a scooter, including whether to stop, slow down, or accelerate, as such actions fall within the rider’s control.
Justice Diengdoh further noted that the prosecution’s contention that the accused ought to have exercised prudence by cautioning the rider was based on supposition at this stage.
Rejecting the prosecution’s objection to bail, the Court held that whether the accused played any such role would be a matter of evidence to be established during trial.
Accordingly, the Court said it was not inclined, at this stage, to accept the prosecution’s argument and granted relief to the accused.
