Mukul Kumar @ Subham Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22434 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2024 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== Mukul Kumar @ Subham Kumar Son of Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Singh Resident of Gorhna, P.S.- Neura, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhumay Madhup, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 360 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 281, 125 and 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the driver (petitioner herein) of the 18-wheeler truck drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the death of the informant's mother-in-law and daughter on the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the truck involved in the accident tragically resulted in the deaths of three individuals. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner serves as the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22434 of 2025(3) dt.28-07-2025 2/2 conductor of the truck in question whereas the actual driver, namely, Pushpa Nagendra fled away from the spot. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 17.09.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that petitioner drove the truck rashly and negligently due to which three persons died and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also there being specific allegation against the petitioner of driving the truck in rash and negligent manner due to which three persons died, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T