Dismissed¶26

Rahul Sahani @ Rahul Kumar Sahni v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Jul 2025CR. MISC./6164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court bail rejection (23-07-2025) in murder case under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act; accused in custody since 09.06.2021 (about four years two months), charge framed 07.10.2023 but zero witnesses examined; bail refused due to specific firearm-injury allegation and nine additional heinous cases; speedy trial right invoked (Hussainara Khatoon); nine-month day-to-day trial completion direction; renewal of bail prayer permitted.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for the present; however, trial court directed to conclude trial on day-to-day basis preferably within nine months, S.P. Motihari, East Champaran directed to ensure production of prosecution witnesses, and petitioner permitted to renew the bail prayer if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period. ¶26

Rahul Sahani @ Rahul Kumar Sahni Vs The State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in Sessions Trial No. 548/2022 arising out of Pipra Kothi P.S. Case No. 231/2020 (Sections 302, 120(B)/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act), should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Taking note of the specific allegation that the petitioner caused fatal firearm injury and that he is found involved in 9 more heinous offences, his prayer for bail is rejected for the present.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

However, considering the custody period of the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial by taking the matter on board on a day-to-day basis, preferably within nine months.

¶28

Key takeaways

Copy of the order is to be sent to the S.P., Motihari, East Champaran to ensure production of prosecution witnesses so that the trial concludes within the aforesaid time period, failing which the petitioner may renew the bail prayer.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6164 of 2025, decided 23-07-2025 (oral order): Bail application of Rahul Sahani @ Rahul Kumar Sahni, named in the FIR of Pipra Kothi P.S. Case No. 231/2020 (offences under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act), tried as Sessions Trial No. 548/2022 for alleged murder of the informant's nephew by firearm injury, rejected after about four years and two months in custody, the charge having been framed on 07.10.2023 with not a single witness examined, on account of the specific allegation against him and his involvement in nine more heinous offences. However, considering the custody period and the plea of speedy trial as a fundamental right (Hussainara Khatoon), the trial court was directed to conclude the trial on a day-to-day basis preferably within nine months, with the S.P., Motihari, East Champaran tasked to ensure production of prosecution witnesses; failing conclusion within that period, the petitioner may renew his bail prayer.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6164 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2020 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Rahul Sahani @ Rahul Kumar Sahni, Son of Late Kamal Sahani Resident of village - Dekaha Bishunpur, P.S.- Pipara Kothi, District - East Champaran.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶8

6 23-07-2025

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶10

petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

¶12

Sessions Trial No. 548/2022 arising out of Pipra Kothi P.S. Case No. 231/2020 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶13

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and

¶14

is in custody since 09.06.2021.

¶15

Allegation against petitioner is to commit murder

¶16

of nephew of the informant alongwith other co-accused persons by causing firearm injury.

¶17

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though specific allegation is available against petitioner but he remains in custody for

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6164 of 2025(6) dt.23-07-2025 2/4

¶19

about four years and two months, where the charge in this matter was framed already on 7^th of October, 2023, despite of that even not a single witness was examined in this case. It is submitted that the informant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence and entire allegation is based upon hearsay input, which based upon the information given by one Dharmendra Sahani over phone. It is submitted that speedy trial is a fundamental right of petitioner/accused and in support reliance was made on Hussainara Khatoon and Others

¶20

Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar , reported in 1980(1)SCC 98. It is also submitted that if petitioner/accused deserves bail, merely on the basis of his criminal antecedents, ordinarily bail should not be denied and in support of his submission, reliance was made on

¶21

Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

¶22

Another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648. It is pointed out that petitioner found involved in nine more criminal cases and for the suspicion arising out of his criminal antecedents, he was implicated with present case.

¶23

Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6164 of 2025(6) dt.23-07-2025 3/4

¶25

submitted that petitioner is a habitual criminal as he found involved in 9 heinous offences, where in number of cases his prayer of bail was refused and for the said reasons, he is in jail for last four years and two months. It is not the fact that he is in custody for such long period in connection with present case only. Learned APP further submitted that there is specific allegation against petitioner to shot dead nephew of the informant, which appears incoroboration with postmortem report. However, he conceded that the speedy trial is a fundamental right in view of the legal ratio as available through Hussainara Khatoon and Others (supra).

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances and by taking note of fact as the specific allegation to cause fatal firearm injury is available against petitioner, who further found involved in 9 more heinous offences, his prayer of bail is rejected herewith for the present.

¶27