Patna High Court
Raghunath SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the allegations are serious, supported by medical evidence, and a prior bail application had already been rejected.
Summary
The petitioner, Raghunath Sahni, applied for bail in a case where he has been in custody since 19 September 2024 for alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that the FIR is fabricated, he has a clean antecedent and has been falsely implicated. The prosecution opposed the bail, pointing to specific allegations against the petitioner, corroborated by medical evidence, and noted that a prior bail application had been rejected by a coordinate bench of the same court. The learned judge examined the seriousness of the charges, the presence of direct evidence, and the earlier denial of bail. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant release, the court refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the IPC
- Whether the existence of medical evidence and prior rejection of bail justify refusal of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 323, 34, 341
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 302 murder
- Section 307 attempt to murder
- Section 323 voluntarily causing hurt
- Section 341 wrongful restraint
- Section 34 common intention
- fabricated FIR
- medical evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26286 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2024 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Raghunath Sahni Son of Lakhan Sahni Resident of Village- Dalkawa, P.S.-
Sonbersa, District- Sitamrhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
19.09.2024 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 473 of 2025
arising out of Sonbersa P.S. Case No. 43 of 2024, F.I.R. dated
31.01.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been
rejected vide order dated 14.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
9419 of 2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26286 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/2
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that from perusal of the FIR it appears that there is
direct and specific allegation against the petitioner supported by
the medical evidence and on the same ground earlier the bail
application of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 473 of 2025 arising out of Sonbersa P.S.
Case No. 43 of 2024 pending in the court of learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge 9th, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…