Sandeep Sahani v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20810 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sandeep Sahani S/o Rambriksh Sahani R/o Village- South Telhua, P.SNautan, Dist- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 176 of 2025 for the offence under sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 17.04.2025 by the informant, Anju Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused persons came and started abusing due to land dispute. When it was objected, the allegation is that Pradeep Sahani gave farsa blow over the head of the informant. As he fell down, Mukesh Sahani and Sandeep Sahani (petitioner herein) started assaulting. Allegation against Thora Sahani is of taking away Mangalsutra and when the sister-in-law came to rescue, this petitioner gave lathi blow on her hand which caused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20810 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/2 fracture. They were shifted to Primary Health Center, Nautan and then to GMCH, Bettiah. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a admitted land dispute and an exaggerated FIR has been lodged.
5. Learned APP, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of this Hon'ble Court to the order of the learned Sessions Judge to submit that the lady sustained a fracture in her left hand and the injury has been found to be grievous in nature, allegedly inflicted by the present petitioner.
6. Taking into account the submissions as also the observation of the learned Sessions Judge, as narrated above, it would be appropriate that the petitioner seeks bail.
7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T