Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15807/2026dismissed

Dhiraj Sahni @ Dhirendra Kumar @ Dhirendra Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-24Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15807 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2024 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== Dhiraj Sahni @ Dhirendra Kumar @ Dhirendra Sahni S/O Harendra Sahni R/O Village- Sorhatha, P.S- Belsar, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vasant Vikas For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 11.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 49276 of 2025 which reads as follows:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Three to four unknown criminals on the gun point looted the Bolero Pick-up van which was being driven by the informant. The name of the petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15807 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026 2/2 come during the investigation on the basis of the selfinculpatory statement of the co-accused namely Arvind Sahni.

4. The petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2024 and is in accused in 18 more similar and serious cases.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this application for regular bail is hereby dismissed.

4. In the case, the charge is to be framed on the next date of hearing. Considering the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T