Ajeet Sahni @ Ajit Sahni @ Ajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49824 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2025 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ajeet Sahni @ Ajit Sahni @ Ajit Kumar S/o Kailash Sahni R/o vill - Siuri Gopinathpur, P.S. - Saraiya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratneshwar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Saraiya P.S Case No. 77 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that petitioner along with Pawan caught his son and Pankaj stabbed him to death.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then petitioner is not in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49824 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/2 the category of assailant rather he is alleged to have caught the son of the informant along with Pawan.

5.

The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the son of the informant was stabbed to death and petitioner along with Pawan are alleged to have caught his son which emboldened Pankaj to commit the occurrence. 6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T