Patna High Court
Munna KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Given the grave nature of the offence involving nine deaths and the petitioner’s ownership of the DJ vehicle, the court declined to grant bail.
Summary
Munna Kumar, the owner of a DJ music system, was arrested for alleged negligence in fixing tall bamboo poles on his vehicle, which caused the vehicle to contact an 11,000‑volt high‑tension wire, resulting in nine deaths and several injuries. He applied for bail, claiming he was falsely implicated, not present at the scene, and had no criminal antecedent. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the loss of life, and the petitioner’s responsibility as the vehicle owner. The Court, considering the gravity of the incident and the petitioner’s ownership role, refused bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and allowing the petitioner to renew the bail application after five months if the trial remains pending. The order underscores the principle that serious offences involving multiple deaths warrant denial of bail at the investigation stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the grave nature of the offence involving multiple deaths.
- Whether ownership of the DJ vehicle and alleged negligence suffices to establish liability warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the allegations constitute specific overt acts against the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 105
Subjects
- bail
- negligence
- homicide
- criminal law
- high tension wire
- owner liability
- serious offence
- court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72855 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2024 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Munna Kumar S/O Pramod Paswan Village Sultanpur, P.S. Industrial Area
Hajipur, District Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vasant Vikas, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Industrial Area Hajipur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2024 instituted for
the offences under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Section 9 of the Bihar Prohibition and use of Loud
Speaker Act.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that due to alleged
negligence of the petitioner in fixing tall bamboo poles on a D.J.
vehicle, the trolley came in contact with an 11,000-volt high-
tension wire, causing the death of nine persons and injuries to
others.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72855 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and
omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No
specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. Learned
counsel further submitted that petitioner is being dragged in this
case merely because he is the owner of the D.J. music system
and he was not present at the place of occurrence. It has been
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in
custody since 12.08.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the
offence is extremely serious in nature, resulting in the death of
nine innocent persons and injuries to several others due to
electrocution. It is submitted that the incident occurred on
account of gross negligence in fixing tall bamboo poles on the
D.J. vehicle, which came in contact with an 11,000-volt high-
tension electric wire. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the
petitioner, being the owner of the D.J. vehicle, was responsible
for ensuring safety and cannot escape liability at this stage.
Considering the magnitude of the incident, gravity of the
offence, and the loss of multiple lives, the petitioner does not
deserve the privilege of bail at this stage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72855 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case as also the nature and gravity of offence, 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 five months from today.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…