Rajesh Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81935 of 2025 Arising out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- MANIGACHI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

Rajesh Sahni Son of Bhoril Sahni Resident of Village - Makrand, P.S. -Manigachi, District - Darbhanga.

2.

Bhoril Sahani Son of Jageshwar Sahni Resident of Village - Makrand, P.S. -Manigachi, District - Darbhanga.

3.

Ranjit Sahni Son of Late Bikau Sahni Resident of Village - Makrand, P.S. -Manigachi, District - Darbhanga.

4.

Pramod Sahni Son of Ghuran Sahni Resident of Village - Makrand, P.S. -Manigachi, District - Darbhanga.

5.

Pappu Sahni Son of Chanchal Sahni Resident of Village - Makrand, P.S. -Manigachi, District - Darbhanga.

6.

Singeshwar Sahni Son of Saryug Sahni Resident of Village - Makrand, P.S. -Manigachi, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-12-2025 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Manigachi P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of BNS.

3. Allegedly the petitioners along with other accused persons rushed to the house of the informant and brutally as-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81935 of 2025(2) dt.15-12-2025 2/3 saulted him. When the brother of the informant came to rescue of the informant, he was assaulted by the petitioners and others due to which he also sustained injury. There is further allegation of snatching of Rs. 5,000/- against petitioner No. 5, Pappu Sahni.

4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners referring to the FIR contended that besides omnibus nature of allegation against five named accused persons including the petitioners the present case is nothing but instituted in order to save the skin from accusation made against the informant and others. It is further contended that the injuries which are allegedly sustained to the informant and his brother are concerned, prima facie, it appears to be simple in nature inasmuch as the same has been discussed in the impugned order which discloses that only a scratch on frontal scalp of 10 Centimeter is found with the injured person Kailash Sahni. It is also contended that be that as it may the petitioners are man of fair antecedents and they undertake that they will fully co-operate the proceeding of the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the petitioners have brutally assaulted the informant and his brother and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81935 of 2025(2) dt.15-12-2025 3/3 there are corresponding injuries.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the delay in loding of the FIR coupled with the omnibus nature of accusation as well as the injuries sustained to the injured besides the factum of case and counter-case, let the petitioners above named be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court of Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Darbhanga (or his successor) in connection with Manigachi P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners. (Harish Kumar, J) Vikash/- U T