Sandeep Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77980 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2024 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sandeep sah Son of Achhelal Sah R/O VILL-ALAMPUR, PS-JAMO BAZAR, DIST-SIWAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Coourt vide order dated 26.03.2025 with an observation that he may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded.

2. A report was called for from the trial Court and from perusal of the report, it is clear that till 24.11.2025 out of nine prosecution witnesses none of the witnesses have been examined.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

4. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. From a bare perusal of the statement of the victim

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77980 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026 2/2 recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is clear that the main thrust of allegation is against this petitioner who is alleged to have created a fake Instagram I.D. and through the said I.D., induced the victim by giving her false promise. The victim has further stated that this petitioner sold her to a dance company where about 40 girls were already present. Thus there are specific and direct allegation against the petitioner relating to offences of human trafficking

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and gravity of the allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner stands rejected with the observation that he may renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months, if the trial is not concluded by that time

7. Accordingly, the learned trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the trial and make all endeavors to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U T