JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Applicant Anurag Yadav is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 371 of 2023, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 28.08.2023, at 11:30 PM, the applicant was driving a vehicle bearing Registration No. UK07-AK-1690. He hit two persons on the road, both of them are seriously injured. One of them, it is stated is in coma. It is also the prosecution case that one of the co-passenger died and another co-passenger has also sustained injuries, including the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant did not hit the injured on road straightway, instead first the vehicle hit the dustbin of the Nagar Nigam. Despite best efforts made by the applicant, he could not avoid the accident. He would submit that, in fact, the applicant also sustained injuries. He was also taken hospital in an Ambulance. His co-passenger has died. He would also submit that it an unfortunate incident, but it a negligent act only. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the one of the injured Roshni Bakshi would submit that she is in coma. Her life is not certain, when would she rise or speak or would she ever rise or speak. She would submit that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Reference has been made to the judgement in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 , particularly to paras 41 and 42, which read as follows:- “41. Rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. As a matter of law—in view of the provisions of IPC—the cases which fall within the last clause of Section 299 but not within clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 may cover the cases of rash or negligent act done with the knowledge of the likelihood of its dangerous consequences and may entail punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC. Section 304-A IPC takes out of its ambit the cases of death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act amounting to culpable homicide of either description. 42. A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death which he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. There is no incongruity, if simultaneously with the offence under Section 304 Part II, a person who has done an act so rashly or negligently endangering human life or the personal safety of the others and causes grievous hurt to any person is tried for the offence under Section 338 IPC.” 6. Learned counsel for the injured would submit that the applicant was highly drunk. He was advised by his co-passenger not to drive, but still he drove the vehicle which resulted to the accident. 7. Learned State counsel adopts the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the injured. 8. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 9. Negligence per se avoids any mens rea. Basically, it tends towards the carelessness; want of due care. 10. During the course of hearing, site plan has been placed for the perusal of the Court. 9. Negligence per se avoids any mens rea. Basically, it tends towards the carelessness; want of due care. 10. During the course of hearing, site plan has been placed for the perusal of the Court. It shows that when the applicant was driving his Scorpio on the left side of the road, suddenly, he took turn towards right. First he hit a dustbin, but he did not stop there. He further hit the pedestrians and injured them. 11. In the case of State Vs. Sanjeev Nanda, (2012) 8 SCC 450 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, observed in para 42 of the judgment as follows:- “42. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we have no doubt in our mind that knowledge can still be attributed to accused Sanjeev that his act might cause such bodily injuries which may, in ordinary course of nature, be sufficient to cause death but certainly he did not have any intention to cause death. He was not driving the vehicle with that intention. There is nothing to prove that he knew that a group of persons was standing on the road he was going to pass through. If that be so, there cannot be an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Thus, in our opinion, he had committed an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. We accordingly hold so.” 12. The applicant was much drunk and not able to drive a vehicle. He drove it. He can be attributed the knowledge of the consequences of his act. Does it mean that the offence falls under Section 304 IPC? This and many more questions would find scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. 13. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 14. The bail application is rejected.