Patna High Court
Baijnath Sahni @ Baidhnath SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner on the basis of lack of substantive evidence and his clean antecedent.
Summary
Baijnath Sahni, arrested on 2 April 2025, was charged under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly kidnapping the sons of an informant and demanding a ransom of Rs. 5 lakh. The prosecution’s case relied solely on the confessional statement of co‑accused Urmila Devi, who had been acquitted by the trial court, and no other material linked the petitioner to the crime. The petitioner, who has a clean antecedent and was not named in the FIR, sought bail, arguing false implication. The court noted the lack of substantive evidence beyond the acquitted co‑accused’s statement and the petitioner’s clean record. Consequently, the court granted bail on a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence, while allowing verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of offences under Sections 364A and 120B when the only evidence is a confessional statement of an acquitted co‑accused.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and absence of his name in the FIR justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 364A
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- ransom
- confessional statement
- acquittal
- clean antecedent
- IPC 364A
- IPC 120B
- criminal conspiracy
- evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5448 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2005 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Baijnath Sahni @ Baidhnath Sahni S/o Late Brahmdev Sahni R/o Village-
Deluha, P.S- Paroo, Dist- Muzaffar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
02.04.2025 in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 49 of 2005,
F.I.R. dated 23.04.2005 for the offences punishable under
Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, petitioner and other
accused persons armed with weapons are alleged to have
kidnapped the sons of the informant and demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5448 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused person, namely, Urmila Devi and said
Urmila Devi has been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide
order dated 26.02.2007 in Session Trial No. 855 of 2005 and
except the confessional statement of co-accused person, no
other material has come during investigation to suggest the
involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and the
police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 02.04.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and the petitioner has clean antecedent and the name
of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the
basis of confessional statement of co-accused person, namely,
Urmila Devi and she has been acquitted by the learned trial
court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Muzaffarpur
in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 49 of 2005, with the
following conditions:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5448 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…