Patna High Court
Mahesh SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh Sahni, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a 2017 FIR alleging kidnapping of a minor girl, with charges under Sections 341, 342, 347 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that the prosecution case was doubtful. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusation, the victim’s corroboration, and the petitioner’s subsequent absconding, which had stalled the trial for four years. The trial court had already dismissed anticipatory bail on 20‑10‑2022 and the High Court examined the gravity of the offences and the petitioner’s conduct. Considering the seriousness of the charges, the direct nature of the accusation, and the petitioner’s evasion of the process, the Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the accusations under the IPC
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the petitioner’s alleged absconding affect the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 341, 342, 347, 354, 366
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 341
- Section 342
- Section 347
- Section 354
- Section 366
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19953 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-615 Year-2017 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia
======================================================
Mahesh Sahni Son of Sri Bikau Sahni @ Bikash Sahni Resident of Srinagar
chowk P.S- Muffasil, Dist- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kabutari Devi Wife of Sri Ratan Sahni Resident of Srinagar chowk P.S-
Muffasil, Dist- Purnea
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342,
347 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.10.2017
at about 1:30 AM, when the minor daughter of informant had
gone to see Mela at Peer Asthan, this petitioner kidnapped her
by motorcycle and when the petitioner parked his motorcycle
near Bilriya chawk, she jumped from the motorcycle and went
to the house of one Subodh Rishi and in the next morning, she
came to her village and narrated the entire story. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19953 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
alleged that thereafter, a Panchayati was also convened wherein,
this petitioner confessed his guilt.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after
inordinate delay of more than one month and there is no
plausible explanation for the same which itself makes the entire
prosecution case doubtful. In this case, after thorough
investigation, the police submitted final form against this
petitioner, however, differing with the same, the learned trial
court took cognizance under Section 366 of the Indian Penal
Code. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedents and there is
absolutely no allegation of tampering with the evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
and there is specific accusation that this petitioner kidnapped the
minor daughter of informant. In Paragraph No. 7 of the case
diary, the victim has supported the prosecution case. It is further
submitted that the present case is of the year 2017 and the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been
dismissed by the learned trial court on 20.10.2022 itself and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19953 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
since then, this petitioner is absconding due to which the trial of
the case has been hampered for four year.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and conduct of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…