Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Bail to Haryana Police Constable Accused of Killing Woman in Drunk-Driving Crash

Justice Virinder Aggarwal refused regular bail to Amit Kumar, a serving police official, whose vehicle allegedly struck an e-rickshaw and ran over a 25-year-old woman after he drove with 115 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dismissed the second bail petition of Amit Kumar, a serving Haryana Police official, on 3 August 2026. Justice Virinder Aggarwal, sitting singly, found that the prosecution material — including a Forensic Science Laboratory report showing 115 mg of alcohol in the petitioner’s blood at the relevant time — made out a prima facie case serious enough to deny regular bail. The case arises from FIR No. 33 dated 12 February 2026, registered at Police Station Parao, after Nikita Bajaj, aged about 25 years, died when a Verna car allegedly driven by Kumar struck the e-rickshaw she was travelling in and then ran over her near Kali Paltan Bridge on the National Highway at Ambala Cantt.

The Incident and the FIR

On the evening of 11 February 2026, at approximately 9:10 p.m., Harsh Bajaj and his sister Nikita were travelling in an e-rickshaw from Ambala Cantt. bus stop towards Model Town, Ambala City. Two other passengers, Poonam and her husband Keshav, shared the vehicle. Near Kali Paltan Bridge on the National Highway, a Verna car bearing registration number HR-29-AE-8282 allegedly struck the e-rickshaw from behind. Nikita fell onto the road and was allegedly run over by the same vehicle.

The driver attempted to flee but collided with the roadside railing and was apprehended by the complainant and another bystander before he could escape. He identified himself as Amit Kumar and was found to be wearing Haryana Police uniform. The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala City, where she was declared brought dead. Kumar was thereafter subjected to a medico-legal examination, following which the FIR was registered.

The FIR invoked Section 281 (rash driving) and Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — corresponding to Sections 279 and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code — along with Sections 185, 181(3) and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Procedural Route to the Second Bail Petition

Kumar had initially been granted bail in respect of the offence under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. When Section 105 was subsequently added to the charge-sheet, he appeared before the Magistrate, joined the investigation, and was remanded to judicial custody. His first petition for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — which corresponds to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — was dismissed as withdrawn on 25 May 2026. The present petition, CRM-M-41646-2026, was filed thereafter.

Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner. The State was represented by Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate, appeared for the complainant and filed his power of attorney before the court.

Arguments for and Against Bail

Counsel for Kumar advanced three principal contentions. He argued that the petitioner himself assisted in shifting the injured to the hospital rather than fleeing the scene. He submitted that the prosecution case, at its highest, disclosed rash and negligent driving and not an offence under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He also pointed to claim proceedings instituted by the legal representatives of the deceased under the Motor Vehicles Act, in which the accident had been described as arising out of rash and negligent driving, as fortifying this contention.

The State and the complainant opposed the petition. Their case rested on the FSL report recording 115 mg of alcohol in Kumar’s blood, the allegation that he attempted to flee after the collision, and the fact that a young woman of 25 years had lost her life as a result. They argued that a serving police official who drove heavily intoxicated and then allegedly ran over the victim did not deserve bail at this stage.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Aggarwal addressed each of the petitioner’s submissions in turn.

On the claim that Kumar had assisted in hospitalising the injured and had not fled, the court held that these were matters of defence to be tested by the trial court upon appreciation of evidence. At the bail stage, such pleas could not dilute the gravity of the prosecution material. The court noted that the prosecution specifically alleged the opposite — that Kumar attempted to flee but was stopped only when his car struck the roadside railing.

On the Motor Vehicles Act claim petition, the court distinguished the two proceedings entirely. It observed that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are compensatory in nature and are decided on different considerations. The pleadings in a compensation claim — describing the occurrence as rash and negligent driving — do not determine criminal liability and do not restrict the criminal court from independently assessing whether the ingredients of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are made out. The court held that such proceedings “cannot be treated as determinative of the issues arising in the present criminal prosecution.”

The court then addressed Kumar’s status as a serving police official. It observed that a police official is expected to uphold the rule of law and maintain a higher degree of responsibility both professionally and personally. The allegations, if established, reflected a complete disregard for public safety: driving a motor vehicle on a public road under the influence of alcohol, allegedly resulting in the death of a young woman.

On the standard to be applied at the bail stage, the court restated that it was not required to evaluate evidence conclusively or record findings on guilt. It was required only to examine whether the accusations were prima facie supported by investigation material and whether, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the accused, bail was warranted.

Applying that standard, the court found the allegations grave and supported at least prima facie by the FSL report. It held that the accusation was not one of rash or negligent driving alone, but of driving under the influence of alcohol in a manner that allegedly caused the death of an innocent young woman. The court noted that the growing incidence of drunken driving is a matter of grave public concern and that courts must balance the right to personal liberty with the societal interest in road safety and public confidence in criminal justice.

Outcome

Justice Virinder Aggarwal dismissed the bail petition as devoid of merit. The court expressly clarified that its observations were confined solely to the bail petition and would not constitute any expression on the merits of the case. The trial court was directed to proceed independently and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation in the bail order. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as a consequence of the dismissal.