Dismissed¶24

Sriram Mukhiya @ Vinod Mukhiya v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Aug 2025CR. MISC./21282/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application rejected; Section 304 IPC; injection administered at shop of petitioner; death of informant's son Aadarsh Kumar; G.M.C.H. Bettiah; compounder defence (clinic of Dr. Srikant Dubey); State alleged absence of medical degree and drug license per case diary paras 46-48; specific and heinous nature of allegation; trial to be expedited; Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 281 of 2024, West Champaran; petitioner in custody since 06.01.2025; CR. MISC. No. 21282 of 2025; order dt. 25-08-2025; Justice Chandra Prakash Singh.

What did the court decide?

Bail is refused: considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the specific and heinous nature of the allegation against the petitioner, the court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. ¶22

Sriram Mukhiya @ Vinod Mukhiya Vs The State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21282 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2024 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sriram Mukhiya @ Vinod Mukhiya S/O Late Sudhan Bhagat @ Late Sudhan Mukhiya Resident of Village- Ninwaliya, P.S- Bettiah (Muffasil), DistrictWest Champaran.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Adya Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 25-08-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 281 of 2024 dated 21.05.2024 registered for the offences punishable u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

3. As per the prosecution case, on 21.05.2024, the informant brought his son namely, Aadarsh Kumar to the shop of the petitioner for treatment. The petitioner gave injection to the informant's son due to which he felt uneasiness and the informant's son died. It is further alleged that the petitioner closed his shop and fled away. Thereafter, the informant with the help of his brother brought his son to G.M.C.H., Bettiah where the doctor declared

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21282 of 2025(4) dt.25-08-2025 2/3

¶17

him dead.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the compounder in the clinic of Dr. Srikant Dubey where the informant brought his son and seeing his condition, the petitioner told to go to the hospital. The petitioner has not done the treatment of the informant's son. There is no evidence or chit of paper regarding the medical treatment of the informant's son which was being done by the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2025.

¶19

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he gave injection to the informant's son after which the informant's son died. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had neither any medical degree nor any drug license which is evident from the statement of the witnesses, in para 46, 47 and 48 of the case diary. Learned counsel has further submitted that practicing in the absence of a medical degree and license is illegal and extremely dangerous to human life. It is further submitted that the accused/petitioner had

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21282 of 2025(4) dt.25-08-2025 3/3

¶21

knowledge that this act was likely to cause death of the deceased.

¶22

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail.

¶23

7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

¶24

8. The application stands rejected.

¶25

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶26

Gautam/-

¶27

U T

Sriram Mukhiya @ Vinod Mukhiya v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sriram Mukhiya @ Vinod Mukhiya v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brahamdeo Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Sunita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Babulal Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mustaque @ Md. Mushtaque Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Mohammad Sarfraj Alam @ Mohamad Sarfraj Aalam Vs The State of Bihar