Vineet Kumar @ Fuddu @ Vineet Raj Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6191 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2017 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Vineet Kumar @ Fuddu @ Vineet Raj Singh S/O Rajesh Singh R/O VillageGopalpur, P.S.- Nayagaon, District- Chhapra 2.
Randheer Kumar@ Madrashi S/O Ravinder Singh R/O Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Nayagaon, District- Chhapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binod Murari Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 69 of 2017, registered for the offences under Sections 304, 143, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the father of the informant used to drive the truck of co-accused Pappu Singh who owed some money to the father of the informant and some hot talk took place between them. On the fateful day, the father of the informant did not return and when the informant went to inquire to the house of the co-accused Pappu Singh, they were
2/4 informed that the father of the informant received electric shock and he was lying in the courtyard of co-accused. The petitioners were present there and did not help the informant in taking his father to the hospital for treatment. Subsequently, the father of the informant was declared dead by the doctor in the hospital.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits from the bare perusal of the FIR, no allegation is made out against the petitioners. Only allegation against the petitioners is that they did not help and cooperate in taking the father of the informant to hospital. In fact, the petitioners and co-accused persons on hearing the commotion about electrocution of the father of the informant gathered at the place of occurrence with other villagers but with malafide intention this present case has been lodged against the petitioners. Co-accused Pappu Singh has been tried in Sessions Trial Case No. 128 of 2018 and he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 12.06.2018. The petitioners are labourers and they have no knowledge about they being named in the present case and police did not arrest them earlier so they did not approach this Court. The petitioners are in custody since 18.11.2024 and charge sheet has been submitted. Petitioner no. 1 is having clean antecedent whereas petitioner no. 2 is having
3/4 antecedent of two cases.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.
6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the completely vague nature of allegation and further considering submission of charge sheet, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Saran/concerned court, in connection with Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 69 of 2017, subject to the condition laid down under Section 437(3) of the code of Criminal Procedure and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the below, if so required by the learned trial court.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
4/4 petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Anuradha/- U T