Dhirendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5120 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2025 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Dhirendra Kumar, S/o- Raj Kishor Singh, R/o Village- Narwar, PO- Kochas PS- Dinara, Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No. 373 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 125(a), 125(b), 281 and 105 of B.N.S.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the brother of the informant who was travelling on the overloaded tractor was dashed by this petitioner who was driving a Scorpio due to which he died.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was drunk. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the Annexure-P/2 it will transpire that first of all the petitioner was booked in excise case and after

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5120 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 2/2 that, he was booked in this case. It has further been submitted that if the petitioner was drunk and has dashed the deceased with his vehicle, he should have been booked first of all under Section 106 of the B.N.S. This shows that on the date of the occurrence, only the petitioner was drunk and accident did not take place from his vehicle. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the petitioner was not intentional as he is having bonafide driving license and the vehicle was insured as well. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 10.12.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the application for bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-IVcum-Sub-Judge-12, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No. 373 of 2025.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T