Anil Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11958 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-381 Year-2025 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Anil Sahani S/o Jai Mangal Sahani Resident of Village - Bhelwa Ward no. 9, P.S - Madhuban, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prateek Tandon, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Madhuban P.S.Case No.381 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS.

3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner called the informant near Durga Mandir, where all the accused persons surrounded and assaulted him. It is further alleged that co-accused Ramesh Patel assaulted the informant and his son with a knife and the other co-accused persons snatched Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket and a gold chain worth Rs.10,000/-.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that no injury is attributable to the petitioner and, therefore, he deserves to be released on pre-arrest

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11958 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 2/3 bail in view of general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Sagar Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, has vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that it was the petitioner who, in a planned manner, had called the informant to the place of occurrence and had informed the co-accused persons to come there where the informant was present near Durga Mandir and he being the main conspirator of the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the nature of allegations and the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, which is serious, in which the petitioner is the conspirator and the coaccused Ramesh Patel had assaulted the informant with a knife causing head injury to the informant and his son with an intention to kill, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

7. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.

(Purnendu Singh, J) chn/- U T

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11958 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 3/3