Patna High Court
Pankaj SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting bail is set aside and the appellant is granted bail subject to a bond and sureties.
Summary
The appellant, Pankaj Sahni, was charged with murder and related offences under Sections 103(1), 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly firing at the husband of the respondent, Rinku Devi, who later died. The prosecution’s case relied on the deceased’s alleged identification of the appellant, but there were no eye‑witnesses and the respondent’s testimony did not corroborate the charge. The Special Judge had rejected the appellant’s bail application, prompting an appeal. The High Court, after noting the absence of a specific overt act and the lack of substantive evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the order refusing bail, and directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The court emphasized the appellant’s lack of prior criminal record and the principle that bail should not be denied merely because trial is pending.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate standard for granting bail in a murder case where evidentiary material is scant?
- Whether the absence of an eye‑witness and the respondent’s non‑corroboration of the prosecution’s case justify bail for the appellant.
- Whether the charges under the Arms Act and SC/ST (POA) Act affect the bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 308(5), 3(5)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- arms act
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- evidentiary insufficiency
- caste violence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4081 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- PUSA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Pankaj Sahni S/o- Anil Sahni R/o- Patepur Gopinath Ps- Pusa Dist-
Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rinku Devi W/o- Late Jitendra Paswan @ Tender R/o- W.No-5, Patepur
Gopinath Ps- Pusa Dist- Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mirtyunjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
7 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Samastipur whereby the prayer for
bail of the appellant in connection with Pusa P.S. Case no. 119
of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 308(5) and 3(5) of B.N.S.,
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2) (v) of SC/ST
(POA) Act was rejected.
3. The case of the respondent is that the appellant
along with others started demanding Rangdari from the husband
of the respondent who is returning after performing his work to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4081 of 2025(7) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
which he denied. On this, he was being abused with caste name.
It is alleged that the appellant fired at the husband of the
respondent. On alarm being raised, the respondent and others
reached there, he was rushed to hospital where he was declared
dead by the doctor. The respondent has further stated that the
appellant and others fired at her husband was disclosed to her by
her husband.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case there is
no eye witness. The deceased has disclosed the name of the
appellant to the respondent. Learned counsel has further
submitted that in this case the trial in progress and altogether
three witnesses have been examined. The respondent has been
examined as P.W.-3. In her deposition, she has not supported the
case of the prosecution and in cross-examination, she had stated
that she does not know as to how did her husband receive gun-
shot injuries. She was at her house at that time. Learned counsel
has further submitted that as nobody has witnessed the
occurrence, the allegation regarding abusing the deceased with
caste name is baseless and the same is not supported by the
respondent herself during her examination in trial. Moreover,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4081 of 2025(7) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 28.01.2025
and he is having no criminal antecedent.
5. The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P.
for the State and has submitted that in this case trial is going on.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration that there is no any specific overt act
against the appellant, the Court is inclined to allow this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
dated 29.08.2025 is hereby set aside.
7. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Pusa P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Samastipur.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
Sneha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.