Patna High Court
Vijay SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal was dismissed; bail was not granted to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant Vijay Sahni was charged under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly taking money, assaulting the informant's husband with a sword and causing his death. The trial court rejected his bail application, and he appealed to the Patna High Court. The appellant argued lack of eye‑witnesses, a single minor injury on the post‑mortem report, and no public caste insult, contending that the SC/ST provision did not apply. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing that three of five charge‑sheet witnesses had already been examined and relying on a Supreme Court decision that serious offences at an advanced trial stage merit denial of bail. The High Court, referencing that precedent, held that the trial was at an advanced stage and therefore dismissed the appeal, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of murder and a SC/ST offence when the trial is at an advanced stage.
- Whether the appellant's conduct falls within the ambit of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the absence of eye‑witnesses and the nature of the post‑mortem injury justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- SC/ST Act
- serious offence
- trial stage
- post‑mortem
- eye‑witness
- appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3159 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2024 Thana- BELSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Vijay Sahni S/o Buta Sahni @ Bhutta Sahni R/o Village- Kansar, P.S.-
Belsand, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sarswati Devi W/o Jay Kishore Chaudhary R/o ward no. 13, Vill - Kansar,
P.S.- Belsand, Distt.- Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA)
Act, Sitamarhi whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in
connection with Belsand PS Case No. 134 of 2024 instituted
under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant
had taken Rs. 4,000/- from the informant. When the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3159 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
and her husband demanded the money, the appellant allegedly
took her husband to Bagmati Bundh and assaulted him with a
sword, causing fatal injuries. The husband later died while being
taken for treatment at PHC Belsand.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
There is no eye witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted
that from perusal of the postmortem report, it would reveal that
there is single injury in left hand, which is not sufficient for
causing death. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that the appellant has not taken the caste name of the informant
in public view. Hence, no offence under the provisions of SC/ST
Act is made out against him. The appellant has no intention to
disgrace the image of the informant in public view. The
appellant is in custody since 18.09.2024 and has no criminal
antecedent.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that three
(3) out of five (5) charge sheet witnesses have been examined
in this case. Learned APP has further relied upon a decision of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3159 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539
(X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in paragraph No.14,
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious
offences like rape, murder, dacoity,
etc., once the trial commences and the
prosecution starts examining its
witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be
loath in entertaining the bail
application of the accused.”
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, taking into account the fact that trial has
commenced and it is at an advance stage, this Court, at this
stage, is not inclined to allow to appeal. Appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.
7. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…