Pakistani court denies bail to woman in Karachi hit-and-run case despite pardon

The photo shows Natasha Danish, the main in a high-profile hit-and-run case, at a police station in Karachi. (Photo courtesy: Pakistan Today/ File)

• Natasha Danish caused a fatal accident while driving under drug influence last month
• Victims’ families pardoned her, but court says the drug case filed by the state to proceed

KARACHI: A Pakistani court on Monday denied bail to a woman accused in a high-profile hit-and-run case, dashing her hopes for immediate freedom after the family of two people who died in the crash pardoned her in a manslaughter case last week.
CCTV footage of the accident was widely circulated on social media last month, showing a Toyota Land Cruiser, allegedly driven by Natasha Danish, the wife of well-known businessman Danish Iqbal, hitting a motorbike from behind, resulting in the death of a female student and her father. Five others were also injured in the incident.
Initially, the defense lawyer told the local court his client was undergoing psychiatric treatment to secure her exemption from court appearances. However, hospital authorities said the suspect’s family could not provide any evidence of the claim, saying she was under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident.
Last week, the court granted the suspect bail in the manslaughter case after the families of those killed and injured submitted affidavits, saying they had forgiven her for the accident. However, the court reserved judgment in the second case filed against her for drug use.
“This Court in its humble view finds applicant/accused failed, to be admitted to post-arrest bail in absence of reasonable ground,” Judge Muhammad Raza Ansari, civil judge district east, declared in a written order. “Therefore, instant bail application stands dismissed, accordingly.”
According to the order, the defense attorney had challenged the applicability of Section 11 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, arguing that the legal provision dealt only with alcohol, while his client was accused of using methamphetamine, commonly known as ice.
The judge, however, dismissed the argument, stating that the law was “not confined to intoxicating liquor only” but also covered other substances.
Section 11 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, stipulates that any Muslim caught in violation can be punished with up to three years in prison, 30 lashes or both.
The defense lawyer further argued the blood test of his client had not returned positive for the drug and raised concerns over the safe custody of the urine sample, which showed the presence of methamphetamine, during a public holiday.
The judge rejected both arguments, citing expert opinion on the matter.
Additionally, the defense counsel claimed the accused had already been pardoned by the victims’ family.
However, the court rejected this reasoning as well, saying that the legal heirs’ pardon could not impact the second case, which was filed by the state.
The court emphasized that methamphetamine consumption was a “new evil” gripping society and must be curbed.
It also described the accused as a “well-educated lady with a good sense of living and law,” adding that she still decided to drive the vehicle while intoxicated, resulting in the deaths of two people and injuries to others.