Patna High Court
Naresh Sahni @ Naresh ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, directing him to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Summary
Naresh Sahni, a 66‑year‑old father of Guddu Kumar, applied for bail in a case registered under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act for alleged extortion and distribution of compromising material. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s son, Guddu Kumar, supplied a video used to blackmail an informant, and that calls were made from two mobile numbers demanding Rs 10,000. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR does not name the petitioner, the phone numbers do not belong to him, there is no evidence of his participation, and he has no prior criminal record. The court considered the lack of direct allegation, the petitioner’s advanced age, the delay in filing the FIR, and the absence of antecedents. Accordingly, the court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is chargeable under the BNS and IT Act provisions alleged in the FIR
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR affects the bail application
- Whether the petitioner’s age and lack of criminal antecedents justify granting bail
- Whether the petitioner’s relationship to the alleged offender (Guddu Kumar) implicates him in the offences
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 108, 294(2)A, 308(3), 3(5), 77, 79
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(E), 67(A)
Subjects
- bail
- extortion
- cybercrime
- Information Technology Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- age
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19015 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2025 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur
======================================================
Naresh Sahni @ Naresh Chaudhary S/o Hiyalal Sahni R/o Village-
Sambhupatti, Ward No.29, P.S.- Karpoorigram, Dist.- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Praveen, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Karpoorigram P.S. Case No.86 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 294(2)A, 77, 79, 308(3), 108,
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) and under
Sections 66(E) & 67(A) of the Information Technology (in short
‘I.T.’) Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
informant has received a call from mobile nos. 8587056253 and
9835668482. The caller made a call and said that he is having a
photograph of the informant and her husband in compormising
position ans the same will be made viral if he is not given
Rupees Ten Thousand. The caller has disclosed that he has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19015 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
received the video from one Guddu Kumar.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is father of Guddu
Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that from perusal of the FIR it is clear that there is no allegation
against the petitioner. The allegation is agains the caller and it
has further been submitted that both the numbers from which
the call was made to the informant does not belong to the
petitioner. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the
FIR it is clear that offence is of 08.07.2025; this case has been
filed on 16.08.2025. The delay in filing of the FIR is not
explained. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the
FIR it is clear that there is no role of the petitioner in the said
occurrence. He is merely father of Guddu Kumar. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner is an old aged person about 66 years of age and he is
in custody since 24.11.2025 having no criminal antecedent.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19015 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail 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 court of learned
District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur in connection with
Karpoorigram P.S. Case No.86 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…