Patna High CourtCR. MISC./89468/2025bail rejected

Arvind Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-25Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89468 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2021 Thana- BALIGAON District- Vaishali ====================================================== Arvind sahni son of Shiv Shankar Sahni Resident Of Vill -Pyarepur PsBaligaon Dist- Vaishali At Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Baligaon P.S. Case No. 142 of 2021 lodged on 16.12.2021, for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance has been taken under sections 395, 412 & 120B of the I.P.C, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-XVI, Vaishali at Hajipur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 66985 of 2024 with liberty granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail one year after framing of charge. Counsel seeks time in this case to file an affidavit with regard to the progress of the cases pending against the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89468 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 2/2

4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it is true that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2022, but there are eight criminal cases pending against the petitioner.

5. From the record, it transpires that the name of the petitioner has come in this case by virtue of confessional statement of the co-accused and the looted articles have been recovered from the petitioner's possession.

6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at this stage.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T