Patna High Court
Ramesh SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and dismissed the petitioner's bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Sahani, sought regular bail in a case (PS Rampurhari Case No.161 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 117(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, stemming from the alleged assault and death of the informant's husband. The prosecution contended that the informant was an eye‑witness who saw the petitioner and two others tying the victim to a tree and assaulting him, leading to his death. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the informant was not a reliable eye‑witness, that the FIR and case diary indicated a suspicious death, that the post‑mortem report lacked a definitive cause of death, and that the petitioner had no prior criminal record. The State’s counsel countered that the informant’s testimony was direct, the post‑mortem showed eight injuries, and the petitioner was the main assailant. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner may re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending and ordering the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail for offences under Sections 117(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.
- Whether the informant's testimony qualifies as an eye‑witness sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged murder and the evidence on record justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 117(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- assault
- eye‑witness testimony
- post‑mortem report
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10285 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- RAMPUR HARI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ramesh Sahani S/O Vijay Sahani R/O Vill.- Koili, Ward No. 4, P.S.-
Rampurhari, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Rampurhari P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025
instituted for the offence under Sections 117(2), 103(1) and 3(5)
of BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant
came to know that the petitioner along with two others is
assaulting the husband of the informant at Litchi orchard by
tying him with a tree. When she went there, she found that all
the accused persons were assaulting her husband. She made
request not to assault her husband despite that, he was being
brutally assaulted due to which, he got unconscious and died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10285 of 2026(4) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. Learned
counsel has submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear
that the informant is not the eye witness of this case. He has
submitted that from perusal of the para-14 of the case diary, it
will transpire that Mukhiya Ram Deni Rai has informed FSL
team and FSL team has found this death to be suspicious. From
perusal of the restatement of the informant, it will transpire that
her husband was being assaulted by the petitioner and others
and other witnesses have stated that they have come to know
about the occurrence from the informant. From perusal of the
postmortem report, it will transpire that the doctor has not given
any opinion regarding the cause of death and the viscera has
been preserved. Moreover, a statement has been made in para-3
of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent
and he is languishing in judicial custody since 23.08.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer
of regular bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
informant is the eye witness and she has seen the occurrence
from her own eyes and from perusal of the postmortem report,
it is clear that altogether eight injuries were found on the person
of the deceased. He has also submitted that the petitioner is the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10285 of 2026(4) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
main assailant and police has not found evidence against two
others and regarding them, supplementary investigation is under
progress.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts and cirumstances of this case as stated
above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail
at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same within the period as stated above.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…