Patna High Court
Sukdeo SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as the petitioners were not related to the primary accused and were unlikely to abscond, subject to bond and affidavit conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, six villagers from Dudhahi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 121(2), 132, 195(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023. They alleged that they were falsely implicated by an informant and had no relation to the primary accused, Neeraj and Sikandar, but were merely present as co‑villagers during a police operation. The police had attempted to apprehend the accused, faced resistance from villagers, and eventually arrested several persons while others escaped. The State opposed bail, arguing the petitioners might abscond, but the petitioners assured cooperation and offered to file an affidavit denying any familial link to the accused. The court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, held that anticipatory bail could be granted provided the petitioners furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and submit the affidavit at surrender. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023 given the allegations of false implication and potential risk of absconding.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 117(2), 121(2), 132, 195(2), 3(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- section 482
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
- village disturbance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40632 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2026 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Sukdeo Sahani S/o Yamuna Sahani R/o vill- Dudhahi, P.S- Harsidhi,
District- East Champaran
2. Basudeo Sahani S/o Yamuna Sahani R/o vill- Dudhahi, P.S- Harsidhi,
District- East Champaran
3. Suresh Sahani S/o Yamuna Sahani R/o vill- Dudhahi, P.S- Harsidhi, District-
East Champaran
4. Vikash Kumar S/o Madan Sahani R/o vill- Dudhahi, P.S- Harsidhi, District-
East Champaran
5. Bablu Kumar S/o Basudeo Sahani R/o vill- Dudhahi, P.S- Harsidhi, District-
East Champaran
6. Raj Kumar S/o Sukdeo Sahani R/o vill- Dudhahi, P.S- Harsidhi, District-
East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2),
117(2), 121(2), 132, 195(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 have antecedent of one case and
petitioners no. 4, 5 and 6 are persons with clean antecedent and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40632 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
2/4
the informant alleges that based on secret information, the
police team reached village Dudhahi on 01.03.2026 where
Neeraj and Sikandar who are named accused in Harsidhi PS
Case No. 467 of 2024 were present in their house and the case
related to Cyber offence but on seeing the police, they tried to
flee but were apprehended and Neeraj threw a mobile phone
which was also recovered. It is further alleged that while the
accused persons were being taken to the Police Station, their
family members and other villagers along with 25-30 unknown
persons came armed with lathi and other weapons and
obstructed the police in discharge of their official duty and even
managed to free the apprehended accused. Thereafter, additional
police force arrived at the spot with whose assistance 11 named
accused persons were apprehended while the remaining accused
managed to escape taking advantage of darkness.
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 petitioners are not
related either to Neeraj or Sikandar rather are co-villagers. It is
further submitted that since petitioners reside nearby to the
house of Neeraj and Sikandar, as such, out of inquisitiveness
they came at the place of occurrence to witness the ruckus when
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40632 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
3/4
they came to be implicated. It is also submitted, if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their
innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and submits that
though a submission has been made that petitioners are not
related Neeraj and Sikandar but then there is no averment to the
said effect in the anticipatory bail application on which the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits
that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners at
the time of surrender will also file an affidavit that they are not
related to Sikandar and Neeraj in any manner rather are their co-
villagers.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Harsidhi
P.S. Case No. 128 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40632 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
4/4
down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. However, the petitioners at the time of surrender
shall file an affidavit recording that they are not related to
Neeraj or Sikandar in any manner and are their co-villagers.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
rajesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.