Patna High Court
Sipahi SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition is dismissed as there are no fresh grounds and the trial is at an advanced stage.
Summary
Sipahi Sahni was arrested in connection with offences under IPC sections 354B, 376, 34 and POCSO Act sections 4 and 8. An earlier bail application was rejected, with the court allowing a fresh petition after nine months. The petitioner, in custody since 26 June 2024, applied for bail again, claiming undue detention. The State opposed, arguing the trial is at an advanced stage with prosecution evidence already closed and defence evidence pending. The court found no fresh ground for bail, noted the trial is ongoing, and therefore rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months and permitting a further bail application if the trial is not concluded.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted at the present advanced stage of trial for offences under IPC 354B, 376, 34 and POCSO Act 4, 8.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to justify bail after the earlier rejection.
- Whether the duration of judicial custody without trial completion warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 354B, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- POCSO
- sexual offences
- trial delay
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68223 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-415 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Sipahi Sahni S/O Late Bhikhari Sahni R/O Vill.- Senuwariya, Nayaka Tola,
Ward no. 16, P.S.- Majhaulia, Dist.- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Umrawati Devi W/O Dashrath Sahni R/O Vill.- Senuwariya, Nayaka Tola,
Ward no. 16, P.S.- Majhaulia, Dist.- West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, A.P.P.
Mr. Rajdeep Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Manjhaulia
P.S. Case No. 415 of 2024 instituted for the offences under
Sections 354B, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code Section 4 and
8 of the POCSO Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 63260 of 2024 regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by
this Court considering the nature of accusation and the gravity of
the offence, with a liberty to renew the prayer after nine months if
the trial is not concluded.
4. In compliance of the order dated 28.11.2025, a report
dated 15.12.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been
received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68223 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
2/2
altogether seven prosecution witnesses has been examined and
prosecution evidence has been closed on 06.11.2025. The case is
fixed for Defence Evidence and next date of this case is
16.12.2025. The trial is likely to be concluded next three months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26.06.2024
without any rhymes or reason.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant
of bail.
7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of
the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is
going on and is at an advance stage.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the
trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a
period of two months from today. If the trial is not concluded
within the period of two months, as stated above, the petitioner
will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…