Patna High Court
Dhanilal SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhanilal Sah, was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he eloped with the informant's daughter, took Rs. 50,000 and jewellery, and faced charges under Sections 87, 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Sections 96/64(1) of the same Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner sought bail, claiming innocence, asserting that the victim is a major who had already married, that she made no incriminating statement against him, and that he has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, highlighting contradictions between statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS and noting that only one of five witnesses had been examined. The Court examined the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the evidentiary contradictions, and concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature and gravity of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act.
- Whether contradictions in the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the presence of only one examined witness and the pending examination of other witnesses preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 351(3), 352, 64(1), 87, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- evidence
- contradictory statements
- trial acceleration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67560 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2025 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Dhanilal Sah Son of Bhikhari Sah Resident of Senuvariya Tal Tola, Ward No.-
10, P.S.- Majhauliya, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Usha Devi Wife of Raghuvir Mahto R/O Village - Senuvariya, School Par,
Ward No.- 10, P.S.- Majhauliya, District - West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Manaur Alam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, Advocate
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 38 of 2025, instituted for the offences
under Sections 87, 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he enticed
away daughter of informant for the purpose of marriage. It is
also alleged that he also took away Rs. 50,000/- cash and six
pieces of silver jewellery from the house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67560 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
general and omnibus allegation has been made against the
petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that victim girl is
major. He further submitted that, as a matter of fact, victim has
already married with one Manoj Mahto on 09.07.2024. He
further submitted that in the statement recorded u/s 183 of
BNSS victim has not stated anything against the petitioner. The
victim was taken to the Doctor for medical examination, but she
declined to undergo medical tests. The victim is major aged
about 18 years. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2025 and has no
criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that there is
contradiction in the statement made under Section 180 BNSS
and u/s 183 of the BNSS. However, in statement recorded under
Section 183 of BNSS, she changed her version. He further
submitted that out of five witnesses, one witness has been
examined. The Charge-sheet has been submitted against the
petitioner under Sections 96/64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67560 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
8. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…