Chandeshwar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15350 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2020 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Chandeshwar Sahni Son of Muneshwar Sahni R/O Mirzapur, P.S.- Tajpur, Dist-Samastipur 2.
Arvind Sahni son of Chandeshwar Sahni R/O- Mirzapur, P.S.- Tajpur, DistSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 354, 379, 448, 504 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are in custody since 18.10.2025 and the informant alleges that on 31.05.2020, at 07:30 p.m., seven named accused persons including the petitioners came and started abusing and when her husband objected, Sewak and Awadhesh assaulted him by lathi and brick causing injury and thereafter other accused persons also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15350 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/3 assaulted the informant, Sanjay (devar) and her daughter-in-law and on alarm the villagers gathered when an accused snatched the chain of her daughter-in-law and the injured were taken to the hospital and later the husband of the informant died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific allegation of assaulting the husband of the informant is against Sewak and Awadhesh. It is next submitted that petitioners were not even aware that they have been implicated in the instant case but, all of a sudden, after five years of the occurrence, they came to be arrested. It is also submitted that some of the accused, who were implicated in the instant case, stand acquitted by the learned trial court. It is submitted that charges against the petitioners stand framed by an order dated 12.03.2026.
5. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that husband of the informant died and allegation of assault though not specific but then the informant, who is wife
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15350 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 3/3 of the deceased, alleges that petitioners were also present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2020 and the petitioners were arrested on 18.10.2025 which amply demonstrates that petitioners were evading the law. It is next submitted that though the order impugned records that some of the accused have been acquitted in the trial by judgment 23.07.2023 but then it appears that petitioners are fence sitter as they were waiting for the trial of other accused to conclude so that they could approach the Court depending on the result of the trial. It is, thus, submitted that if the privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail at this stage in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 175 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T