Ganesh Sahni @ Ganes Sahni @ Ganesh Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79723 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2025 Thana- MAKER District- Saran ====================================================== Ganesh Sahni @ Ganes Sahni @ Ganesh Sahani S/O Jai Narayan Sahni Resident of Village- Dihi Siroman, Badhi Chak (Dihi Pirmaker), P.S- Maker, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2025 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Maker PS Case No. 177 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that he was intercepted by the accused persons and Rahul assaulted him by knife causing injury on head and Rahul along with Ganesh (petitioner) assaulted maternal grandson of his brother aged about 4 years by brick causing injury on head. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79723 of 2025(2) dt.08-12-2025 2/2 informant. It is next submitted that allegation of assaulting the informant by knife is against Rahul. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, it transpired that wife of the informant used to talk to Rahul, as such the occurrence is alleged to have taken place and petitioner, being uncle of Rahul, came to be implicated.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that though petitioner is not alleged to have assaulted the informant by knife, but then it is alleged that he was also present at the place of occurrence and along with Rahul assaulted the four years maternal grandson of the brother of the informant by brick causing injury on head, it is thus submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.

Considering the submission made by 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