Mantu Kumar Sah @ Mantu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72409 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== Mantu Kumar Sah @ Mantu Sah S/o Late Shivnath Sah R/o vill - Ghurna Bazar, P.S.- Ghurna, Distt.- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarveshwar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renu Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the Case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 212 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 281 and 105 of BNS and Section 37(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner being driver of E-Rikshaw bearing registration No. BRHER-5065, in drunken condition, dashed the mother and sister of the informant and fled away. The mother of the informant sustained head injury and succumbed to the said injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner was neither driver nor owner of the said E- Rikshaw. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. It has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72409 of 2025(3) dt.11-12-2025 2/2 been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2025 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. There is allegation against the petitioner of rash and negligent driving causing death of mother of informant. Therefore, he does not deserve privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is specific allegation against the petitioner to dash the mother of the informant, 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.

9. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for grant of bail before the Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within a period of 06 from today. If any such application is filed before the learned court below, the court concerned shall consider the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T