Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ajit Kumar Sahani @ Ajit Sahani @ Bhagat Sahani @ BhagatversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, the absence of incriminating testimony under Section 183, and the petitioners’ clean antecedent justify granting pre‑arrest bail.

Summary

The petitioners, Ajit Kumar Sahani and Bikrama Prasad, applied for pre‑arrest bail in connection with PS Mirganj Case No. 105 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The FIR was lodged seven days after the alleged abduction of a minor girl, and the victim’s statement under Section 180 implicated the co‑accused Rahul Kumar, while her statement under Section 183 did not allege sexual assault by the petitioners. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioners were complicit in the forced abduction and that prior enmity suggested motive. The Court noted the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, the lack of incriminating testimony under Section 183, and the petitioners’ clean antecedent. Relying on Section 482(2) of the BNSS, the Court ordered that the petitioners be released on bail if arrested, subject to bond and surety conditions. The order also required one bailor to be a close family member.

Issues considered

  • Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted despite allegations under Sections 137(2) and 96 BNSS
  • Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the victim’s statements affect the likelihood of the petitioners’ involvement
  • Whether prior enmity can be a ground to deny bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • pre‑arrest bail
  • delay in FIR
  • BNSS
  • sexual assault allegation
  • prior enmity
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70801 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2025 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ajit Kumar Sahani @ Ajit Sahani @ Bhagat Sahani @ Bhagat S/O Bikrama
                  Prasad @ Bikrama Sahani R/O Village- Jigna Malahi Tola, P.S.- Mirganj,
                  District- Gopalganj
           2.    Bikrama Prasad @ Bikarma Sahani S/O Late Ganesh Malah R/O Village-
                 Jigna Malahi Tola, P.S.- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Salehiya Devi W/O Om Prakash Sharma R/O Village- Jigna Malahi Tola,
                 P.S.- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Devashish Giri, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                  Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners,

                   learned Advocate for the informant and the learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

                   connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the

                   BNS.

                                3. In the fateful night, while the minor daughter of the

                   informant was sleeping in her room, in the meantime, the

                   informant got up at 01:30 AM, she found that her daughter was

                   not in her bed. Later on, when the informant enquired the matter

                   and tried to find out the whereabout of her daughter, she came to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70801 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                            2/3




          know that one Rahul Kumar and unknown boy were seen taking

          the victim on their motorcycle. This led to institution of the FIR.

                       4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that

          admittedly the FIR has been instituted against co-accused Rahul

          Kumar, that too after a delay of seven days, without there being

          any plausible explanation. Subsequently thereto, the victim was

          recovered and her statement was recorded by the police under

          Section 180 of the BNSS, wherein she has alleged about the

          complicity of the petitioners, but when her statement was further

          recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she has not even whispered

          that the petitioners have anyhow sexually assaulted except

          stated they were accompany with co-accused Rahul Sahani. The

          reason behind the false implication is said to be a prior

          complaint case instituted by the sister of co-accused Rahul

          Sahani, wherein the petitioner no. 1 and her mother were

          complaint witnesses. The copy of the complaint has been placed

          on record as Annexure-P/4. It is lastly contended that be that as

          it may, the petitioners are men of fair antecedent and they

          undertake that they will fully co-operate in the proceeding of the

          Court.

                       5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State

          opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that there is

          specific accusation against the petitioners that they have forcibly
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70801 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                        3/3




                      abducted the victim girl and the prior enmity is a two edged

                      sword, which cuts both the sides; hence the complicity of the

                      petitioners cannot be ruled out.

                                   6. Having considered the submissions advanced by

                      learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of

                      the delay in lodging of the FIR, coupled with the statement of

                      victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, as also the materials

                      available on record suggesting prior enmity, coupled with the

                      fair antecedent of the petitioners, let the petitioners above

                      named be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or

                      surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks

                      from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon

                      furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with

                      two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

                      learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with

                      Mirganj P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, subject to the conditions

                      laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha

                      Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors

                      shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners.



                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.