IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46884 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rajesh Sahni @ Rajni Sahni @ Sanjiv Kumar Son of Ravindra Sahni Resident of Village- Sirkhiriya, P.S.- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 18-08-2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025, registered for the offense under Section 87 of the B.N.S. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 09.02.2025, the informant, Murari Sah, submitted a written report alleging that on 26.01.2025, at about 12:00 noon, his wife, namely Ritu Devi, informed him that Rajesh Sahni had called her near Vasatput turn, ahead of Bali Toll Plaza, for returning the money allegedly taken from her. Accordingly, the informant, along with his wife, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46884 of 2026(3) dt.18-08-2026 2/5 proceeded to the said place. It is further alleged that upon reaching said spot, the informant noticed a Scorpio vehicle standing there, near which the accused persons, namely (1) Rajesh Sahni, (2) Brijesh Sahni, (3) Devendra Sahni, (4) Sikandar Sahni, (5) Jitendra Sahni and (6) Reena Devi, were present. When Ritu Devi approached the Scorpio, all the accused persons allegedly surrounded her and engaged her in conversation. It is further alleged that, during the said occurrence, he felt the urge to urinate and, therefore, went a short distance away from the road for the said purpose. Taking advantage of his absence, the accused persons allegedly forcibly took Ritu Devi inside the Scorpio against her will and thereafter drove the vehicle towards the northern direction. The informant suspected that the accused persons had acted pursuant to a pre- planned criminal conspiracy and had forcibly abducted his wife with an alleged intention to cause her death and/or compel her into prostitution. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this present case. He submits that on perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the alleged occurrence took place on 26.01.2025 and the informant was present at the time of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46884 of 2026(3) dt.18-08-2026 3/5 occurrence, despite that the F.I.R. was lodged on 09.02.2025, without any explanation whatsoever for the delay in lodging the FIR, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case and renders the same doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not present at the alleged place of occurrence and he has no concern at all with the alleged occurrence. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in judicial custody since 17.05.2026. 5. Per Contra, the learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail and submitted that according to the F.I.R the accused persons including the petitioner forcibly took the victim inside the Scorpio against her Will and acted pursuant to a pre-planned criminal conspiracy and had forcibly abducted the wife of the informant with an intention to cause her death and/or compel her into prostitution. On perusal of the case diary, particularly paragraph Nos. 20 and 36, it appears that the victim has supported the prosecution version, as stated in F.I.R., retreating the same in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. He further submits that from perusal of paragraph Nos. 5, 8 and 9 of the case diary, it also appears that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46884 of 2026(3) dt.18-08-2026 4/5 informant as well as other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits that from paragraph No. 71 of the case diary, it appears that the Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) & 87 of the B.N.S. He further submits that paragraph No. 104 of the case diary also reveals that the investigation is still in progress. Learned APP for the State further submits that the statement recorded during course of investigation indicates that the witnesses in the present case are under threat and, therefore, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood that the same would adversely affect the prosecution case. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and also the fact that the petitioner in connivance with others hatched a conspiracy for kidnapping the victim has supported by the prosecution witnesses as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., and also the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, which is even less than three months, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46884 of 2026(3) dt.18-08-2026 5/5 8. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. Aman/- (Girijish Kumar, J) U T