Patna High Court
Raj Kumar SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to regular bail and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The petitioners, Raj Kumar Sahani and Vijay Kumar Sahani, were arrested in connection with a violent incident that resulted in the deaths of Pankaj and Bhutkun, and were charged with multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on the statements of a watch‑man informant, who was not an eye‑witness to the alleged killings. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, had clean antecedents, and that the allegations were based on mere suspicion. The State opposed regular bail but could not rebut the claim that the informant’s testimony was insufficient to establish the petitioners’ direct participation. Considering the lack of direct evidence, the petitioners’ clean record and their willingness to cooperate, the Court ordered their release on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties. The application for bail was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail despite being charged with serious offences under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the informant’s non‑eyewitness testimony and the reliance on suspicion justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 1-B)a, 25, 26, 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 147, 148, 149, 302, 304, 323, 341, 504, 506, B
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- murder
- suspicion
- clean antecedent
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10589 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2022 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Raj Kumar Sahani S/o Bhuneshwar Sahani R/o Village - Basantpur, P.S -
Paroo, District - Muzaffarpur
2. Vijay Kumar Sahani @ Vijay Sahani @ Vijay Kumar S/o Late Tileshwar
Sahani R/o Village - Basantpur, P.S - Paroo, District - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prasoon Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Devi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and
the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 302, 304,
120(B), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
25(1-B)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and
the informant alleges that two dead bodies were recovered and
the same was identified as that of Pankaj and Bhutkun. Further,
body of Pankaj had firearm injury and a pistol was lying near
the two dead bodies. It is next alleged that informant came to
know that Pankaj, Bhutkun along with Ranjeet were returning
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10589 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
home after liquor party, when on the way there was an
altercation amongst the three and Bhutkun with his pistol shot
Pankaj dead and in the meantime, nearby people gathered along
with the petitioners who shot Bhutkun to death.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is
next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR, it would manifest that the informant, who is a
Chaukidar, alleges that two dead bodies were found lying at the
place of occurrence and he came to know later that Pankaj,
Bhutkun along with Ranjeet were returning after a liquor party
and on account of an altercation amongst them Bhutkun shot
Pankaj and thereafter people gathered along with the petitioners
and assaulted Bhutkun to death.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence nor he has disclosed that who saw the occurrence or
the petitioners assaulting Bhutkun. It is next submitted that
entire allegation hinges around suspicion and even presuming
what has been alleged is true without admitting, then it is not the
case of the prosecution that it was only petitioners who along
with Ranjeet assaulted Bhutkun to death as it has been alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10589 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
that nearby people gathered who assaulted Bhutkun. It is
reiterated and submitted that petitioners are persons with clean
antecedent and will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial
to prove their innocence. It is further submitted that petitioners
are in custody since 14.12.2025 and charge-sheet has been
submitted.
6. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for regular bail of the petitioners, but then, is not in a position to
rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR, it manifests that informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence and the allegation hinges around suspicion.
7. Considering the facts afore-stated, the petitioners,
above-named, are directed to be released on bail on their
furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned J.M.F.C., Muzaffarpur (West) in
connection with Paroo P. S. Case No. 471 of 2022.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.