Patna High Court

Sandeep sahversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and rejected the bail application.

Summary

The petitioner, Sandeep Sah, was charged under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged human trafficking, involving a fake Instagram ID used to lure the victim to a dance company. He had previously applied for bail, which was rejected on 26-03-2025 with a direction that he could renew the application after six months if the trial was not concluded. The petitioner sought regular bail again, arguing that the trial had not progressed, as none of the nine prosecution witnesses had been examined by 24-11-2025. The court examined the victim's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, noting the seriousness and specificity of the allegations. Considering the gravity of the offences and the stage of the proceedings, the court declined to grant bail, reiterating that the petitioner may renew his application after six months if the trial remains pending. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial and aim to conclude it within six months of receiving this order.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case of alleged human trafficking under IPC Section 366 given the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of the trial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 366

Subjects

bail
IPC 366
human trafficking
Criminal Procedure Code
trial delay
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77980 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2024 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Sandeep sah Son of Achhelal Sah R/O VILL-ALAMPUR, PS-JAMO
                 BAZAR, DIST-SIWAN                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                             Versus
                 The State of Bihar                      ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   16-01-2026                        Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this

                   Coourt vide order dated 26.03.2025 with an observation that he

                   may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not

                   concluded.

                                2. A report was called for from the trial Court and

                   from perusal of the report, it is clear that till 24.11.2025 out of

                   nine prosecution witnesses none of the witnesses have been

                   examined.

                                3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                4. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under sections 366 of the

                   Indian Penal Code.

                                5. From a bare perusal of the statement of the victim
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77980 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
                                                        2/2




                      recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is clear

                      that the main thrust of allegation is against this petitioner who is

                      alleged to have created a fake Instagram I.D. and through the

                      said I.D., induced the victim by giving her false promise. The

                      victim has further stated that this petitioner sold her to a dance

                      company where about 40 girls were already present. Thus there

                      are specific and direct allegation against the petitioner relating

                      to offences of human trafficking

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                      of the case as well as the nature and gravity of the allegation

                      made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to extend

                      him the privilege of bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed

                      on behalf of the petitioner stands rejected with the observation

                      that he may renew his prayer for bail after a period of six

                      months, if the trial is not concluded by that time

                                   7. Accordingly, the learned trial Court is hereby

                      directed to expedite the trial and make all endeavors to conclude

                      the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt

                      of a copy of this order.


                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…