Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58768/2025dismissed

Dharmendra Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-02Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58768 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-300 Year-2024 Thana- BANJARIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Dharmendra Sahani S/o- Late Ramesh Sahani Village- Chailaha Tal PsBanjariya Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari For the State :

Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 02-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, registered in connection with Banjariya P.S.Case No. 300 of 2024.

3. According to allegation, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner five years prior to lodging of the FIR. It is alleged that the petitioner tortured the deceased for demand of a motor-cycle and assaulted her. The informant received an information that the petitioner committed murder of the deceased.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been dragged into

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58768 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026 2/2 this case. No injury was found in the post mortem report. The FSL report shows that no poisonous substance was detected in chemical examination of the viscera. It is also submitted that the charges have been framed.

5. As per the allegation, the petitioner throttled the deceased to death. The post mortem report shows vomitus mixed with blood coming from the mouth which corroborates the allegation.

6. On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

7. In my view, it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. It is accordingly rejected.

8. However, considering the incarceration of the petitioner since 18.10.2024, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case, and if the trial is not concluded within a period of nine months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T