Baijnath Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35622 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-381 Year-2023 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Baijnath Sahni R/o Sukhar Sahni @ Sukhari Sahni R/o Village- Asma PSPatepur, Distt. Vaishali, Bihar-843110 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jandaha (Mahisaur) P.S. Case No. 381 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is of commission of murder of the informant's husband.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Vikash Kumar @ Bhulla. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35622 of 2025(3) dt.11-09-2025 2/2 the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that as per the material available in the case diary, co-accused Vikash Kumar has confessed his guilt and has also disclosed the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of murder of the informant's husband, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail and, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T