The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has raised critical issues over the dearth of particular authorized provisions to cope with the rising menace of ‘wheeling’, and has known as for harder legal guidelines to curb it.
Wheeling is a harmful stunt the place two-wheeler riders raise the entrance wheel whereas driving.
Justice V Srishananda, whereas listening to a bail plea, noticed that present legal guidelines fall wanting successfully deterring such habits.
Presently, people performing wheeling can solely be charged beneath provisions associated to negligent or rash driving, that are bailable offences.
Justice Srishananda famous that these provisions are insufficient for regulation enforcement to take stringent motion in opposition to such hazardous acts.
“On the time of enacting the Motor Autos Act, maybe the lawmakers didn’t envisage a state of affairs the place a two-wheeler can be pushed on the rear wheel alone,” he stated.
Given the sharp rise in such stunts, the Court docket known as on the State to enact harder legal guidelines focusing on wheeling.
“In gentle of the alarming improve in such incidents, it’s the bounden responsibility of the State and enforcement companies to introduce vital statutory provisions and undertake stringent measures to suppress this harmful development,” the decide acknowledged.
The Court docket highlighted that the act of wheeling not solely endangers the lives of riders and pillion passengers but in addition poses a grave menace to public security.
“Younger motorcyclists wrongly equate wheeling with bravery, unaware of the life-threatening penalties. This reckless behaviour disrupts public order and peace,” the court docket famous.
The court docket stated this whereas rejecting a bail software filed by a person accused of performing wheeling on a bike with two pillion riders in October 2024.
Based on the police, the stunt resulted in a crash when officers tried to intercept the car. A confrontation adopted, throughout which the accused allegedly abused the officers, precipitated accidents, and broken authorities property by throwing a police cellphone right into a canal.
Whereas the accused maintained that he was falsely implicated as a consequence of a private dispute with the police, the Excessive Court docket was not satisfied.
The decide additionally took under consideration the prosecution’s declare that the petitioner was a repeat offender and had behaved aggressively through the incident.
“Mere submitting of the cost sheet can not, by itself, justify bail. The petitioner is free to strategy the suitable court docket for bail if there may be any important change in circumstances,” the Court docket stated in its concluding remarks.
Advocate Sadiq N Goodwala represented the petitioner, whereas Authorities Pleader Girija S Hiremath appeared for the State.
. Learn extra on Nation by Newsstate24 Revenue.
