Patna High Court
CR. MISC./44616/2026 of Rakesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 13 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44616 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-880 Year-2025 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Ajay Singh R/o Village- Samastichak, P.S- Bhagwanganj, Dist- Patna. ...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44616 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-880 Year-2025 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ======================================================
Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Ajay Singh R/o Village- Samastichak, P.S- Bhagwanganj, Dist- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. M.K. Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
13-08-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Nirala, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 880 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 281, 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Allegedly, while the informant's grandson was going to school by school bus bearing Registration No. BR01PA-7143, in the meanwhile, he had fallen through a large hole, which was persisting in the bus, due to rash and negligent driving. On account of the aforesaid incident, the informant's grandson was ran over by the vehicle, in question, leading to his instantaneous unfortunate death.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44616 of 2026(3) dt.13-08-2026
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that besides the fact that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was not driving the bus, in question, it was the duty of the school administration to look into the matter, if there was some repairing work required in the bus. Even if the allegation is taken to be true for the sake of argument, it is evident that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to cause any harm to the informant's grandson; above all, since there is an allegation of rash and negligence driving, in such circumstances, only 106(1) of the BNS, is attracted, which is bailable in nature. It is further argued that earlier also, time without number, the petitioner had informed the school administration to get the bus repaired, but nothing had happened and, in the meanwhile, such mishap took place, for which the petitioner can not be held not responsible. The petitioner bears fair antecedent and he undertakes that he will fully co-operate in the proceeding of this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that during the course of investigation, the Director of the school, Dinbandhu Kanhar @ Abhinash Kumar was apprehended by the police and he categorically disclosed that it is petitioner, who Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44616 of 2026(3) dt.13-08-2026
used to run the bus, in question, and, as such, he was duty bound to take care of the students. It is further contended that no material has surfaced that on that day, the petitioner was not running the bus.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of a gross negligence of the petitioner, which resulted into death of a tiny tot, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Court below, preferably within a period of six weeks, his prayer for bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by the order of this Court and taking note of the submissions above referred, immediately.
8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.
sumit/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T