Sagar Sahni @ Sagar Kumar @ Sagar Kumar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90070 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2023 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna ====================================================== Sagar Sahni @ Sagar Kumar @ Sagar Kumar Sahni Son of Suraj Sahni @ Nata Sahni Resident of Muhalla - Machuatoli, P.S. - Kadamkua, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai For the Informant :

Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana Ms. Misha Bharti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-07-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 905 of 2024 arising out of Kadmakuan P.S. Case No. 50 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7932 of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is renewing his prayer for grant of bail on the merits of the case.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the view that once, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on merits and therefore this Court will not go again in the same. So far as the trial of the petitioner is concerned, out of eight

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90070 of 2024(4) dt.18-07-2025 2/2 eight charge-sheeted witnesses, five have been examined.

5. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with a direction to the informant side to produce the witnesses in the trial.

7. During the course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that two coaccused Rahul Bangali and Sahil @ Russel had threatened the informant.

8. In view of the above, the informant is given liberty to approach the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patna under the Witness Protection Program and if the authorities fined that the informant and other witnesses need police protection then the same shall be provided to them under the witness protection program.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patna through FAX for its compliance.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U