Patna High Court
Chandeshwar SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Chandeshwar Sahni and Arvind Sahni, applied for regular bail in a case involving multiple IPC offences, including murder (Section 302), stemming from an alleged assault on 31 May 2020 that resulted in the death of the informant's husband. They claim to have clean antecedents, argue they were falsely implicated, and point out that they were arrested five years after the incident, asserting they were unaware of the charges until then. The State contends that the petitioners were present at the scene, evaded the law for years, and may abscond if released, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The court considered the delay in arrest, the gravity of the charges, and the State's concerns about potential absconding. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, denying regular bail to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioners in a case involving serious IPC offences, including murder, given the five-year delay in their arrest.
- Whether the petitioners' claim of false implication and clean antecedent outweighs the State's concerns of potential absconding and the seriousness of the offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 354, 379, 448, 504
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- murder
- assault
- false implication
- delay in arrest
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15350 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2020 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Chandeshwar Sahni Son of Muneshwar Sahni R/O Mirzapur, P.S.- Tajpur,
Dist-Samastipur
2. Arvind Sahni son of Chandeshwar Sahni R/O- Mirzapur, P.S.- Tajpur, Dist-
Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 354,
379, 448, 504 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and later on
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are in custody
since 18.10.2025 and the informant alleges that on 31.05.2020,
at 07:30 p.m., seven named accused persons including the
petitioners came and started abusing and when her husband
objected, Sewak and Awadhesh assaulted him by lathi and brick
causing injury and thereafter other accused persons also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15350 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
assaulted the informant, Sanjay (devar) and her daughter-in-law
and on alarm the villagers gathered when an accused snatched
the chain of her daughter-in-law and the injured were taken to
the hospital and later the husband of the informant died.
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
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific
allegation of assaulting the husband of the informant is against
Sewak and Awadhesh. It is next submitted that petitioners were
not even aware that they have been implicated in the instant
case but, all of a sudden, after five years of the occurrence, they
came to be arrested. It is also submitted that some of the
accused, who were implicated in the instant case, stand
acquitted by the learned trial court. It is submitted that charges
against the petitioners stand framed by an order dated
12.03.2026.
5. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the
State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioners and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands
admitted is that husband of the informant died and allegation of
assault though not specific but then the informant, who is wife
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15350 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
of the deceased, alleges that petitioners were also present at the
place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the occurrence
took place in the year 2020 and the petitioners were arrested on
18.10.2025 which amply demonstrates that petitioners were
evading the law. It is next submitted that though the order
impugned records that some of the accused have been acquitted
in the trial by judgment 23.07.2023 but then it appears that
petitioners are fence sitter as they were waiting for the trial of
other accused to conclude so that they could approach the Court
depending on the result of the trial. It is, thus, submitted that if
the privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioners, the
petitioners may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the
petitioners on bail at this stage in connection with Tajpur P.S.
Case No. 175 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned 1 st
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur/Successor
Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…