Patna High Court
Sonu SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and dismissed the regular bail application.
Summary
Sonu Sahani and Harendra Sahani were arrested in connection with a land‑dispute incident in which firearms were used, resulting in injuries to three persons. The FIR charges them under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act, although the petitioners contend that they were not the ones who fired the weapons and have clean antecedents. They applied for regular bail, arguing false implication and the absence of any allegation of firing against them. The State and the informant opposed bail, stating that the petitioners' presence at the scene facilitated the offence and that charges have not yet been framed. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail, noting that the petitioners may renew their application after charge‑framing. Consequently, the regular bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted when charges have not been framed and the accused's alleged involvement is limited to presence at the scene
- Whether the petitioners' alleged participation in a land‑dispute incident justifies denial of bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1), 118(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- firearms injury
- charges not framed
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12232 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-485 Year-2025 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
1. Sonu Sahani S/o- Santosh Sahani Resident of village- Silaut PS- Samastipur
Muffasil District- Samastipur
2. Harendra Sahani S/o- Ashok Sahani Resident of village- Silaut PS-
Samastipur Muffasil District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sudarshan Bhardwaj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 352,
351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27
of Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are in custody
since 09.12.2025 and the informant alleges that he and his uncle
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12232 of 2026(3) dt.05-05-2026
2/4
had given 10 katha land on batai to Sharvan for three years ,
further he asked Sharvan and his sons, Ashok and Sanjay to
leave the land as they intended to do agriculture on their land,
further the informant along with his family members on
07.12.2025 at 03:00 PM were on their land, when accused
persons came and threatened to leave the land, on objection,
Sharvan and Sanjay gave orders to Pankaj, Bhola, Sonu
(petitioner no. 1) and others to kill, thereafter Bhola fired
causing injury on stomach of informant, further Pankaj fired at
Ajay causing injury on stomach and one villager Himanshu who
was also present at the place of occurrence got shot below his
waist.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that Bhola
fired at informant causing injury on stomach, thereafter Pankaj
fired at Ajay who also suffered injury on stomach and Himanshu
also got shot, but then allegation of firing is not alleged against
the petitioners. It is further submitted that on account of dispute
relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place
and the entire family members including the women member of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12232 of 2026(3) dt.05-05-2026
3/4
the family have been implicated. It is further submitted that
Shravan Sahani, Bahuri Devi and Nirmala Devi had approached
this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal
Miscellaneous No.12660 of 2026 and the same came to be
allowed by an order dated 23.03.2026 with respect to Bahuri
Devi and Nirmala Devi and Sharvan Sahani had withdrawn his
anticipatory bail application.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
regular bail application of the petitioners. The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant submits that from perusal
of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
three persons suffered firearm injury. It is next submitted that
petitioners may not be alleged to have fired, but then their
presence at the place of occurrence emboldened the named
accused persons who committed the occurrence of firing leading
to injury. It is also submitted that charges against the petitioners
have not been framed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
7. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to
renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12232 of 2026(3) dt.05-05-2026
4/4
8. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…