Patna High Court
Moti Lal SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and that bail would be considered only upon the petitioner's surrender within four weeks.
Summary
Moti Lal Sahni applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (P.S. Case No. 63 of 2024) involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including sections 126(1), 115(2), 137(2), 140(3), 352, 351(2) and 3(5). He alleged that his only connection to the alleged crime was his brotherhood with co‑accused Nagendra Sahani and that no material linked him to the assault on his son and the subsequent disappearance. The State contended that a Section 82 arrest process had already been initiated and that the petitioner was evading arrest. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730, the Patna High Court refused anticipatory bail, but directed that bail could be considered if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks. The order thus rejected the bail petition pending surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the material on record justifies the grant of bail.
- Whether a Section 82 arrest process already in motion precludes anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(1), 137(2), 140(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 82
- criminal procedure
- assault
- missing person
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70977 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2024 Thana- Patauna District- Madhubani
======================================================
Moti Lal Sahni S/o Badri Sahni R/o Vill- Kataiya, P.S-Patauna, Dist-
Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K.Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Patauna P.S. Case No. 63 of 2024, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(1), 115(2), 137(2),
140(3), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. Allegedly the son of the petitioner was in love with
the daughter of co-accused Nagendra Sahani. On 09.09.2024,
the accused persons including the petitioners brutally assaulted
the son and when the informant came to his rescue, she was also
threatened and assaulted. On 25.09.2024, his son went missing
and his mobile number was found switched off.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70977 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner contended that only on account of the fact that he
being brother of the co-accused Nagendra Sahani, the name of
the petitioner has been implicated in this case, without there
being any material available on record.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and
submitted that from the impugned order it appears that the
process under Section 82 has already been issued and the
petitioner has been evading his arrest.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the mandate of the Apex Court in Lavesh vs State (NCT of
Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 this Court is not acceded to the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, accordingly the prayer for
bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, if the petitioner
surrenders before the learned Court below preferably within a
period of four weeks from today, his prayer for bail shall be
considered without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U T
Checking your session…