Amarnat Sahni @ Tuntun SahaniversusThe State of Bihar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68927 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur
                  ======================================================
                  Amarnat Sahni @ Tuntun Sahani, Son of Mahendra Sahni, Resident Of
                  Village- Bhore Jayram, PS- Khanpur, District- Samastipur

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
            1.    The State of Bihar
            2.    Sunaina Devi, wife of Bihari Mahto, Resident Of Village- Bhore Jayram,
                  PS- Khanpur, Dist- Samastipur

                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr.Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate
                                                   Mr. Vinit Kumar, Advocate
                  For the State           :        Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
                  For the O.P. No.2       :        None.
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                                        ORAL ORDER

10   17-06-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                    A.P.P. for the State. However, no one appeared on behalf of the

                    opposite party no.2.

                                  2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in

                    connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024, registered for

                    the offences under Sections 448, 342, 376(D), 504/34 of the

                    Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act.

                                  3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and other

                    co-accused Sudhir Kumar Mahto entered into the house of the

                    informant and forcibly took away her minor daughter and

                    committed gang rape with her. It is further alleged that earlier

                    also these persons committed gang rape with the daughter of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68927 of 2025(10) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/4




          informant.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been

          falsely implicated in this case. From the FIR, it is apparent that

          the first allegation of gang rape is of 23.05.2024, but no report

          was lodged with the police. Thereafter, the second occurrence

          took place on 31.05.2024, but again the FIR has been instituted

          only on 02.06.2024 without any explanation. The medical

          examination report does not support the incident of rape and

          only on the basis of ruptured hymen it was presumed that rape

          was committed. But it has come during investigation that the

          victim girl has been married twice and she and her mother are

          stated to be suspicious characters, who are habitual in lodging

          false cases against a number of persons including the Circle

          Officer, Khanpur. The learned counsel further submits that

          during investigation, the police gathered information from the

          statement of witnesses that there was a monetary dispute

          between the informant and co-accused Sudhir Kumar Mahto. A

          number of witnesses supported this fact and they also submitted

          application to the police in this regard that a false and fabricated

          case has been lodged by the informant. From the medical report,

          it is also apparent that there was no sign of any violence. Except
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68927 of 2025(10) dt.17-06-2026
                                            3/4




          for the statement of the informant and her daughter, there is no

          reliable evidence against the petitioner, who has been implicated

          in this case merely because of the fact that he is friend of co-

          accused Sudhir Kumar Mahto. The petitioner is in custody since

          16.06.2025 and is having clean antecedent. The charge sheet has

          been submitted.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the

          submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP

          submits that it is a case of gang rape and the informant as well

          as the victim have made direct allegation against the petitioner

          and the co-accused.

                       6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and

          submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the

          doubtful nature of allegation against the petitioner and further

          considering the period of custody of the petitioner and his clean

          antecedent and also considering the submission of charge-sheet

          against him, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on

          furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

          Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-

          Special Judge, POCSO Act, Samastipur/court concerned, in

          connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024, subject to the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68927 of 2025(10) dt.17-06-2026
                                                       4/4




                     condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the BNSS and

                     other following conditions:

                                             (i) One of the bailors will be a close

                                             relative of the petitioner.

                                             (ii) The petitioner will remain present on

                                             each and every date fixed by the court

                                             below, if so required by the learned trial

                                             court.

                                             (iii) In case of absence on three

                                             consecutive dates or in violation of the

                                             terms of the bail, the bail bond of the

                                             petitioner will be liable to be cancelled

                                             by the court concerned.



                                               (Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-

U      T