A judicial magistrate on Saturday dismissed the acquittal application of a female SUV driver in a case pertaining to allegedly driving under the influence of drugs.
The woman had been booked by the Bahadurabad police on manslaughter charges after a speeding Toyota Land Cruiser driven by her hit three motorbikes and another vehicle on Karsaz Road last year.
The crash claimed the lives of 60-year-old Imran Arif and his 22-year-old daughter Amna, and injured several others. However, the accused was later acquitted in that case after the victims’ family pardoned her “without any blood money”.
She is also facing a separate case under Section 11 (drinking liable to tazir) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, after her medical report showed she was under the influence of crystal meth (methamphetamine). The Singh High Court had granted her bail in the drug case.
On Saturday the judicial magistrate XI (East), who is hearing the drug case, announced his order on her acquittal plea filed under Section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), dismissing the application. The court fixed June 21 as the next date of hearing, when it is expected to frame charges against her.
In her application she contended that she was absolutely innocent as she had been falsely implicated in the case with mala fide intentions. She said the drug FIR was lodged after a delay of 11 days in utter disregard of the law.
Her lawyer argued that a separate FIR, which was the outcome of the same incident that had already been reported to the police, was illegal and unlawful, and in violation of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in the Sughra Bibi case.
“Any subsequent information relating to the same incident should not result in a new FIR, but instead it should be treated as part of the ongoing investigation under the existing FIR so as to avoid abuse of process of law and to prevent multiplicity of litigation and harassment of the accused.”
The counsel contended that the blood and urine samples of the accused were sent for a chemical examination, adding that the blood sample showed no presence of drugs but her urine sample detected methamphetamine (ice).
“It is concerning that despite collecting both blood and urine samples from the same individual/accused on August 19, 2024, the test results show a significant discrepancy: the blood sample indicates no presence of methamphetamine (ice), while the urine sample tests positive for it. This stark contrast raises serious questions about the reliability of the test results.”
He argued that Section 249-A of the CrPC relieves the court from the necessity of going on with the trial if it is convinced that the evidence available on record is not enough to prove a charge and there is no probability of the accused begin convicted of any offence.
“Admittedly, no evidence is available against the applicant/accused and yet she [is] being subjected to face the rigours of the trial, which is clearly amounting to harassment to the accused/applicant and to the abuse of the process of the court.”
The magistrate was, therefore, pleaded to acquit her in the case to “save her from unnecessary harassment and abuse of the process of the court”.
