The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of causing three deaths by drunken driving, holding that the distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 BNS and death by rash or negligent act under Section 106 BNS hinges on proof of knowledge, not merely the fact of intoxication. The Court emphasized that while voluntary intoxication is no defence under Section 24 BNS, the prosecution must still establish the requisite knowledge from the totality of facts and circumstances, a determination reserved for trial.
Background & Facts
The Incident
On 08.06.2026 at approximately 8:00 PM, the petitioner Kulveer Singh was driving a Brezza car bearing registration No. PB-36-K-5903 at Bhullarai Chowk, District Kapurthala. He allegedly drove at high speed in an inebriated condition and hit a motorcycle (PB-10-ES-8222) from behind. The motorcycle was being ridden by Sukhvir Singh with his wife Anjana and daughter Hargun Kaur (aged about 5 years) as pillion riders. The impact caused the motorcycle to strike the rear tyre of a stationary Eicher mini truck (DL-01-MB-0844). All three occupants fell and suffered fatal injuries. Sukhvir Singh and Hargun Kaur were declared dead at Civil Hospital, Phagwara, while Anjana was declared dead at Satyam Hospital, Jalandhar. Thereafter, the petitioner's car hit a Grand Vitara (PB-46-AQ-4933) driven by Tejinderpal Singh, causing minor injuries to its occupants.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 51 dated 09.06.2026 registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara under Sections 105 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
- Complainant: Amarjit Singh (father of deceased Sukhvir Singh)
- Petitioner arrested on 09.06.2026; medical examination conducted, doctor opined he was under the influence of alcohol (drowsy, smell of alcohol, slurred speech, unsteady gait, impaired coordination)
- No motive or previous connection between petitioner and deceased alleged
- Petitioner has no other criminal cases pending and has not been declared a proclaimed offender
- Investigation completed; final report (chargesheet) presented before the Court on 07.09.2026
- Trial is at initial stage and conclusion likely to take time
Procedural History
- 09.06.2026: FIR registered; petitioner arrested
- 06.08.2026: Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dismissed petitioner's regular bail application
- 07.09.2026: Final report presented before the trial Court
- Present petition: Filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the High Court seeking regular bail
- 30.10.2026: Judgment reserved
- 03.11.2026: Judgment pronounced and uploaded
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Contended that the allegations pertain to death by rash and negligent act, attracting Section 106 BNS (corresponding to Section 304-A IPC), not Section 105 BNS. Mere consumption of alcohol is insufficient to implicate under Section 105 BNS; knowledge contemplated by Section 100 BNS must be established from the entire factual matrix including manner of driving, speed, road conditions, visibility, nature of impact, and location of the motorcycle. The impugned order is erroneous and cryptic. Investigation complete, final report filed, petitioner in custody since 09.06.2026 (~5 months), trial will take time, no useful purpose served by continued detention.
Respondent-State: Argued specific allegations that petitioner hit the motorcycle intentionally, causing three deaths. At the time, he was under influence of alcohol as confirmed by medical examination (Annexure R-2). Driving in such condition amounts to an offence in itself with ample evidence. Gravity of allegations warrants denial of bail.
Relief Sought
Petitioner sought grant of regular bail in FIR No. 51/2026 pending trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the act of driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in death attracts Section 105 BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder - requiring knowledge that the act is likely to cause death) or Section 106(1) BNS (death by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide), and whether at the bail stage the Court must make a final determination on this classification or leave it for trial.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan and Mr. B.S. Sandhu argued that the prosecution version itself describes driving at high speed in a negligent manner after consuming liquor, which prima facie falls under Section 106 BNS. Section 105 BNS requires proof of knowledge under Section 100 BNS, which must be assessed from the entire factual matrix including speed, road conditions, visibility, nature of impact, and the presence of the stationary mini truck. The Additional Sessions Judge's order was cryptic and failed to appreciate that voluntary intoxication under Section 24 BNS only rules out intoxication as an excuse but does not relieve the prosecution of proving knowledge. With investigation complete, final report filed, no other FIRs, no flight risk, and nearly five months in custody, continued detention serves no purpose.
For the Respondent
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG Punjab, contended that the status report alleges intentional and mala fide hitting of the motorcycle. The petitioner was under the influence of alcohol as per medical examination showing drowsiness, smell of alcohol, slurred speech, unsteady gait, and impaired coordination. Driving in such condition is an offence in itself with ample evidence. Given the gravity of allegations involving three deaths including a child, bail should be denied.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework: Section 105 BNS (corresponding to Section 304 IPC) has two parts - the first applies where the act is done with intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; the second applies where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without such intention, punishable up to ten years. Section 106(1) BNS (corresponding to Section 304-A IPC) covers death by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, punishable up to five years.
The Court relied on Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, where the Supreme Court held that rash or negligent driving on a public road with knowledge of its dangerous character and likely effect may amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if it results in death. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Where negligence or rashness alone causes death, Section 304-A IPC applies; where the act is preceded by knowledge that it is likely to cause death, Section 304 Part II IPC may be attracted.
The Court also referenced State through P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda, (2012) 8 SCC 450, where the Supreme Court held that for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused knew his act was likely to cause death. Knowledge was attributed there as the accused drove in an inebriated state after consuming excessive alcohol, without a licence, at high speed, and in a rash and negligent manner.
"These judgments show that a death caused by drunken driving may fall under Section 304 Part II IPC, now the second part of Section 105 BNS, if the requisite knowledge is established. At the same time, they do not lay down that every case of driving after consuming alcohol must necessarily fall under this provision."
The Court observed that the Sanjeev Nanda presumption of knowledge was made in the specific context of driving without a licence, at high speed, after consuming liquor beyond the permissible limit. Both Pareira and Nanda conclusions were recorded after full trial and evidence appreciation.
In the present case, the status report alleged intentional hitting with mala fide intention, but no motive or previous connection was shown. The FIR itself speaks of high speed and negligent manner after consuming liquor - prima facie resting on knowledge, not intention. The doctor's observations did not specify blood alcohol quantity. The Additional Sessions Judge observed voluntary intoxication is no defence and the act was imminently dangerous. The Court clarified that Section 24 BNS provides a person in voluntary intoxication is to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as if not intoxicated; this only rules out intoxication as an excuse - the prosecution must still establish requisite knowledge from facts and circumstances.
"Whether the act of the petitioner was merely rash and negligent or was done with the knowledge contemplated by Section 105 BNS is a matter to be determined by the trial Court. This would depend upon the evidence regarding speed of the vehicle, manner of driving, road and traffic conditions, visibility and nature of impact, including the presence of the stationary mini truck. It would not be appropriate to express any final opinion on this aspect at this stage."
On bail, the Court held gravity of allegations is relevant but cannot be the sole ground to keep an accused in custody pending trial indefinitely. The petitioner has been in custody since 09.06.2026 (nearly five months), investigation is complete, final report presented, no other FIR, no apprehension of absconding or tampering, and trial will take time. No useful purpose served by continued custody.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The prosecution may apply for cancellation of bail if the petitioner is found involved in any subsequent case. The Court clarified that all observations are only for deciding the bail petition and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Knowledge Must Be Proved, Not Presumed From Intoxication Alone
The judgment reinforces that Section 105 BNS (second part) requires proof of actual knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, not merely the fact of alcohol consumption. Courts must examine the totality of circumstances - speed, manner of driving, road conditions, visibility, nature of impact, and surrounding facts - before classifying a drunken driving death as culpable homicide. The Sanjeev Nanda presumption is context-specific (no licence, excessive alcohol, high speed) and not a universal rule.
Bail Not Defeated Solely By Gravity When Trial Is Distant
- Custody duration matters: Nearly five months in custody with investigation complete and final report filed weighs strongly for bail
- No flight risk or tampering apprehension: Absence of such concerns in the status report supports release
- Trial delay: Initial stage of trial with obvious time to conclusion makes indefinite pre-trial detention unjustified
- Gravity is a factor, not a veto: Serious allegations (three deaths including a child) do not automatically negate bail entitlement
Section 24 BNS Does Not Shift Burden of Proof
Voluntary intoxication is no defence under Section 24 BNS, but this provision only equates the intoxicated person's knowledge to that of a sober person - it does not relieve the prosecution of proving knowledge from the factual matrix. Practitioners should argue that the prosecution must still lead evidence on speed, road conditions, visibility, and impact dynamics to establish knowledge under Section 100 BNS.
Classification Between BNS 105 and 106 Is A Trial Question
At the bail stage, courts should not make final determinations on whether the act falls under Section 105 or Section 106 BNS. This classification depends on evidence appreciation reserved for trial. Bail courts should focus on custody duration, investigation status, flight risk, and trial timeline rather than pre-judging the offence category.
