Patna High Court
Manish sahni @ Manish kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The application for regular bail was dismissed.
Summary
Manish Sahni, husband of a woman who was allegedly tortured and killed, was charged under IPC sections 302, 304B and 34. He applied for regular bail, claiming he was falsely implicated and that the post‑mortem report did not support the alleged strangulation. The prosecution presented an FIR stating the deceased was killed and her body left by a railway track, and three witnesses had already been examined in the trial court. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the trial had already commenced and the petitioner was in custody since 5 August 2025. Considering the seriousness of the offences and the evidence already on record, the Court refused bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the trial within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of murder, dowry death and common intention (IPC §§302, 304B, 34) when the trial has already commenced and prosecution evidence has been examined.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 304B, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- section 302
- section 304B
- section 34
- high court
- trial expeditious
- false implication
- post-mortem
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87874 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2023 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Manish Sahni @ Manish kumar Son of Ram Chandra Sahni Resident of
Mohalla - Mananpur, Ps- Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case
no. 43 of 2023 registered under sections 302, 304B and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that his daughter who was married to the petitioner herein was
tortured by the accused persons including the petitioner. She
was finally done to death and thereafter her body kept by the
side of the railway track.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason
that he happens to be the husband of the deceased. While the
allegations in the FIR is of the deceased having been killed as a result
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87874 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
of strangulation, the said allegation is not supported from the post-
mortem report. The petitioner is in custody since 5.8.2025 and trial
has commenced in the learned trial Court. He undertakes to
cooperate in the trial wherein as per instructions received, three
witnesses including the informant have been examined on behalf of
the prosecution.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR against the
petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased, trial
having commenced in the learned trial Court with three
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution having been examined,
the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the
application is rejected.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
and to conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a
period of six months.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…