Satendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13283 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2024 Thana- TRAFFIC P.S. BYPASS District- Patna ====================================================== Satendra Kumar Yadav S/o- Binda Ray RO Village- Bakawa PS-Rasauli District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Rina Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 28-03-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Traffic Bypass P.S. Case No. 31/2024 registered on 16.04.2024 for the offenses punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304, 427 of the Indian Penal Code AND 198A of the M.V. Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the informant hired an auto on share to go to a particular place, but the driver was driving the auto very roughly. The informant objected, but the driver did not respond to his words and continued driving recklessly. Suddenly, upon seeing a crane under metro construction, the driver became nervous and crashed the auto into the crane, resulting in the death of four persons and injuries to three others.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13283 of 2025(2) dt.28-03-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is the driver of a crane engaged in metro construction work and was working at the site with the support of other company members. The site was protected with barriers and reflectors. In fact, the accident involving the auto occurred before reaching the crane and the auto did not collide with the crane. The allegations are general, vague, and omnibus in nature.

5. Upon a specific query by the Court as to whether the petitioner possesses a valid driving license, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does have a valid license, but the same is not on record.

6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the driving license is a crucial document, which the petitioner has failed to produce.

7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Traffic Bypass P.S. Case No. 31/2024, pending before the learned ACJM-1, Patna City, is hereby rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13283 of 2025(2) dt.28-03-2025 3/3 learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail along with valid driving license, then the Trial Court, without being prejudiced by the rejection of the petitioner's anticipatory bail application, shall release him on bail, imposing its own conditions so that the petitioner may not evade appearance before the Trial Court.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T