Patna High Court
Vijay SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Vijay Sah sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR alleging that he, along with others, set an informant's house on fire, violating Sections 324(4), 326(g) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The petitioner claimed the case was fabricated due to a land dispute between the parties, who are Gotiyas, and asserted his innocence. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the specific accusations, the petitioner’s alleged flight from the scene, and his prior criminal record. The court examined the specificity of the allegations and the petitioner’s antecedents. Considering these factors, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 324(4), 326(g) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. given the specific accusations and his criminal antecedent
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 324(4), 326(g), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- arson
- criminal antecedent
- land dispute
- sections 324
- section 326
- section 3(5)
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7836 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2025 Thana- TILAUTHU District- Rohtas
======================================================
Vijay Sah Son of Doma Sah Resident Of Village- Mahrajganj, Ps- Tilauthu,
Dist- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324(4),
326(g) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the
F.I.R. named accused persons, including this petitioner, set the
house of informant on fire.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. As a matter of fact, both parties are own
Gotiyas and due to land dispute between the parties, this false
and concocted case has been lodged. There is case and counter-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7836 of 2026(2) dt.20-02-2026
2/2
case.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
and there is specific accusation that he, along with other accused
persons, set the house of informant on fire. This petitioner was
seen fleeing from the place of occurrence. Petitioner has got one
criminal antecedent.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and criminal
antecedent of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…