Manish Sahni @ Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87874 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2023 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Manish Sahni @ Manish kumar Son of Ram Chandra Sahni Resident of Mohalla - Mananpur, Ps- Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case no. 43 of 2023 registered under sections 302, 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his daughter who was married to the petitioner herein was tortured by the accused persons including the petitioner. She was finally done to death and thereafter her body kept by the side of the railway track.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason that he happens to be the husband of the deceased. While the allegations in the FIR is of the deceased having been killed as a result

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87874 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 of strangulation, the said allegation is not supported from the postmortem report. The petitioner is in custody since 5.8.2025 and trial has commenced in the learned trial Court. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial wherein as per instructions received, three witnesses including the informant have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased, trial having commenced in the learned trial Court with three witnesses on behalf of the prosecution having been examined, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T