The Supreme Court dismissed Gujarat’s plea to cancel bail of a 23-year-old accused in the Vadodara crash case. It held that drug consumption alone and non-deliberate offence are not sufficient grounds to deny bail.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Gujarat government seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused in the Vadodara crash case. The case relates to a serious road accident involving alleged rash and negligent driving under the influence of drugs, which resulted in one death and left six others seriously injured.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and N. V. Anjaria refused to interfere with the bail order already granted to the 23-year-old accused. The Court carefully examined the arguments presented by the State as well as the circumstances of the case before arriving at its decision.
The Gujarat government had strongly opposed the bail, arguing that the accused showed a lack of remorse and was involved in multiple collisions during the incident. It also highlighted that a separate FIR had been registered under the NDPS Act, suggesting drug involvement in the matter. Based on these factors, the State sought cancellation of the bail granted earlier.
However, the Supreme Court was not convinced by these submissions. The Court noted that the bail in question was granted specifically in relation to the rash driving case, and the existence of a separate NDPS case could not automatically justify cancellation of bail in this matter.
Importantly, the Court observed that mere drug consumption cannot be treated as a sufficient ground to deny bail, especially when there is no clear indication that the offence was committed with deliberate intent. The Bench emphasized that the nature of the offence, as presented, did not demonstrate a pre-planned or intentional act.
The Court also took into account that the accused had already spent around nine months in custody. Additionally, it considered the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence, which can extend up to ten years, but does not automatically warrant continued detention without strong reasons.
ALSO READ: Vadodara Tragedy || ‘Accused Took Drugs, Switched Seats Before Crash’: Police
After evaluating all aspects, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the bail order. As a result, the plea filed by the Gujarat government was dismissed.
In its order, the Court recorded the factual background and submissions, noting that,
“Bench refused to interfere with the bail granted to a 23-year-old accused of rash driving allegedly under drug influence, leading to 1 death & 6 serious injuries.”
The State’s arguments were also taken on record, with the Court observing that,
“State argued lack of remorse, multiple collisions, and a separate NDPS FIR.”
Setting out its reasoning, the Court stated, “Court, however, noted:” and proceeded to clarify the key considerations governing the decision:
“• Bail was granted in the rash driving case;
• Drug consumption alone cannot be a ground to deny bail;
• Offence not shown to be deliberate;
• Accused has already spent 9 months in custody; and
• Max punishment up to 10 years.”
Concluding the matter, the Court held,
“No grounds to cancel bail. Plea dismissed.”
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Vadodara Crash Case
