Negligence under Indian Penal Code sections 279 and 304A requires evidence of recklessness leading to fatal consequences, with affirmed convictions supporting the effectiveness of judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT :

The present Criminal Revision No. 655 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 18.08.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2012 by Md. Nasiruddin, learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Palamauat Daltonganj whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Palamau at Daltonganj has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2012 and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2012 passed by Mr. Rajesh Sharan Singh, the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Rehala P. S. Case No. 45 of 2007 corresponding to G. R. No. 1193 of 2007 [T. R. No. 94 of 2012] by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three (3) months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one (1) year for the offence under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code

However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. I. A. No. 2621 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 30.05.2016 by the Co ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra as then His Lordship was) of this Court. However, the bail of this petitioner was cancelled on 30.04.2024 by the Co ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava) of this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2024 i.e. for around eight (8) months and earlier also he had remained in custody for a few days and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. It appears that earlier the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the Co ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra as then His Lordship was) of this Court. However, the bail of this petitioner was cancelled on 30.04.2024 the Co ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice PradeepKumar Srivastava) of this Court on account of non appearance of the counsel.

7. It further appears that the petitioner is in custody since11.07.2024 i.e. for around eight (8) months.

8. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the custody of the petitioner, during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner namely Vinay Kumar Bind is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/ (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Mr. Rajesh Sharan Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj/or his Successor Court in connection with Rehala P. S. Case No. 45 of 2007 corresponding to G. R. No. 1193 of2007 [T. R. No. 94 of 2012].

9. Thus, I. A. No. 2621 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Cr. Rev. No. 655 of 2016

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the informant as opposite party no. 2 in this case in course of the day.

11. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 in the admission matter as to why this Criminal Revision Application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the admission stage itself and for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D and ordinary process must be filed within two weeks from today.

12. Put up th