Conviction under Section 306 IPC impermissible, in absence of proof of suicide, abetment within meaning of Sections 306, 107

In Ajay Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhary and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 20-page long judgment dated February 25, 2026 wherein, it concluded:"...there is no reliable evidence on record to establish that the deceased committed suicide or that the appellant abetted the commission of suicide. In absence of proof of suicide and abetment within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code, conviction under Section 306 IPC would also be impermissible in law. 80. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally caused disappearance of evidence with the object of screening himself from legal punishment. The conviction under Section 201 IPC therefore cannot be sustained."

It added: "81. In view of the discussions and findings recorded. 82. The conviction of the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed thereunder are set aside. 83. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code are also set aside .84. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. 85.If the appellant is in custody, he shall be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. 86. If on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged."

Law is settled that if an order has been passed without taking note of relevant submissions, liberty is always to approach same Court

In The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Jyoti Kumar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice (Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 8-page long judgement dated February 9, 2026, wherein, it observed:"5. The law is well settled that if an order has been passed without taking note of the relevant submissions of the parties, the liberty is always to approach the same Court. Also if any wrong noting has been made, it is open to the parties to approach the same Court while the matter is still fresh in its mind. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners which is stated to have been placed but not considered by the learned Single Judge may be agitated in a civil review petition or by taking such other recourse as may be available in law. Liberty is accordingly granted to the appellants to seek appropriate remedy available in law." 

The Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the State of Bihar and others challenging the order dated January 17, 2025 passed by the Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8049 of 2023. There were twenty three petitioners in the said writ petition. They had prayed for issuance of a writ/writs in the nature of certiorari to set aside an order dated December 22, 2022 issued by Director, Land Records and Survey, Revenue and Land Reform Department, Bihar Government (Respondent No 4) by which he has been pleased to hold that certificates of Diploma in Civil Engineering produced by the petitioners are forged one and their appointments on the posts of Special Survey Amin has been further cancelled. They prayed also for holding that Certificates of Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained by petitioners as genuine and bona fide. 

After issuance of notice, respondent no. 5, Dr. Momita Goswami, the Registrar of C.M.J University, filed
counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, and second supplementary counter affidavit. The Single Judge in his judgment and order dated June 17, 2025, was pleased to hold as follows:-
“5. On perusal of the pleadings, the
supplementary affidavit dated 23.11.2024 of respondent No 5 and the documents annexed therein, it is clear that on the basis of an FIR registered against Respondent No 5, the State of Meghalaya vide its order dated 31.03.2014 passed the order of dissolution of the CMG University
(Respondent No 5) which has been challenged by the
University before the Meghalaya High Court and a
learned Single Judge of the Meghalaya High Court in
Writ Petition No 177 of 2014, on ground of non-
compliance of principles of natural justice, set aside the
order dated 31.03.2014 vide its judgment dated
16.07.2015 (Annexure F). The above order has been
challenged by the State of Meghalaya by filing Writ
Appeal No 14 of 2017 which was decided on 06.05.2021
and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
16.07.2015 has been set aside and the matter was
remitted back to the learned Single Judge for
adjudication on merit. Respondent No 5 approached the
Supreme Court challenging the order dated 06.05.2021
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Meghalaya and vide order dated 01.06.2021, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo
as to the functioning of the University in SLP (C) No
7081 of 2021. A categorical stand has been taken by
Respondent No 5 that after passing of the order dated
16.07.2015 by the learned Single Judge of the Meghalaya
High Court, the State of Meghalaya allowed the
University to function for 9 academic years without any
complaint and Respondent No 5 continuously functioned
from 2015 till date without any demur. Categorical
pleading has been taken by the University that the State
Government/UGC had allowed the University to function
smoothly from the academic year, 2015-2016 to 2023-
2024. The above stand taken by the University has not
been rebutted by the other respondents in their counter
affidavit. Thus, it is quite clear that the University
(Respondent No 5) was functioning from academic year,
2015-2016 to 2023-2024.

The second supplementary counter affidavit of Respondent No 5 dated 20.01.2025 further shows that
again the University has taken the stand that the degree of the petitioners has been verified by the University and it was found that all the petitioners herein have passed
their examination in the year, 2018 which is also
mentioned in the document with the supplementary counter affidavit dated 20.01.2025.
7. As contained in the documen, it is quite clear that all the petitioners herein have passed their examination from the CMG University
(Respondent No 5) in the year, 2018, i e, prior to their
recruitment which has not been disputed by the counsel
for the other respondents, i e, the State of Bihar.
Therefore, on this ground alone, both the orders
impugned are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, both the orders impugned dated 22.12.2022 and 23.11.2023 are set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondents to take a decision afresh in the light of the
stand taken by Respondent No 5 in this petition.
9. Needless to say that the concerned respondents will pass a reasoned order as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
3. The grounds taken by the learned counsel for the appellants in the present Letters Patent Appeal in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15, reads as follows:-
“13. That on completion of pleadings, the
matter was heard and during hearing of the writ petition,
the copy of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 9690 of
2024, (C.M.J. Foundation and other Versus State of
Meghalaya and others) dated 13.02.2025 was referred
before the Hon'ble Single Bench. The said appeal was
filed challenging the judgment and order dated 6th May,
2021 passed by the Division Bench of Meghalaya at
Shilong.in Writ Petition No. 14/17 whereby the
judgment and order dated 16.07.2017 passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ
Petition (C) No. 177/14 was quashed and the matter was
remitted back to the Hon'ble Single Judge to take
appropriate decision regarding the validity of the order
passed by this Hon'ble Court dissolving C.M.J.
University. During hearing of the said Civil Appeal by
the said Hon'ble Supreme Court 3 issued were framed
determination and they are as follows:-
(i) Whether the appointment of Chancellor of
the C.M.J. University was made with due
adherence of the procedure as mandated by
law?
(ii) Whether the dissolution order dated
31;03.2014 was passed with due adherence to
the procedure provided under section 48 of the
C.M.J. University Act, 2009 and in compliance
of the direction issued by this Hon'ble High
Court vide order dated 13.09.2013 in Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 1967/13 titled as C.M.J.
Foundation and others Versus the State of
Meghalaya and others?
(iii) Whether the Division Bench of the Hon'ble
High Court of Meghalaya was justified in
remitting back to the Hon'ble Single Judge for
reconsideration of matter while allowing the
writ Appeal No. 14/17.
14. That after a detailed hearing, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the appointment of Chancellor
of C.M.J. University was nonest and void ab initio, the
dissolution order dated 31.03.2014 has been passed in
strict adherence to the procedural requirement of section
48 of the C.M.J. University Act, 2009. The Division
Bench of Meghalaya High Court was not justified in
remitting the matter back to the Hon'ble Single Judge for
consideration of merit and the decision of the State
Government dated 31st March, 2014 for dissolving the
C.M.J. University, Meghalaya 1st Set 1st Set was
affirmed.
15. That in spite of the above stated judgment being referred at the time of hearing of C.W.J.C. No.
8049 of 2023 the Single Judge passed the impugned judgment in contravention of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding the dissolution of C.M.J. University to be proper and legal
and thus the Hon’ble Single Judge has committed an error.”

The appellants's counsel submitted that, even though the judgment pronounced in Civil Appeal No. 9690 of 2024 (C.M.J. Foundation and Ors vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors) was placed before the learned Single Judge, the same was not considered and therefore, the impugned order was passed remitting the matter back to the concerned respondents for taking a fresh decision in light of the stand taken by the
respondent no.5 in the writ petition. When a pertinent question was put to the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether any material was placed on record showing that the said decision referred to in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 i.e. C.A. No.9690 of 2024, was placed before the Single Judge, the answer was in negative. However, he submits that the decision was placed and, if it had been taken into account, the result could have been otherwise.

The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Sahoo. He concluded: "6. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case. 7. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that a contempt petition has already been filed by the respondents for non-compliance of the impugned order. In view of such submission, it is open to the appellants to take appropriate measure in its interest, as per law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the LPA stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of."

Justices Bibek Chaudhuri, Dr. Anshuman set aside judgement, order in rape, murder case

In Shatrughan Ram @ Shatrudhan Das Vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 16-page long judgement, wherein, it set aside the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Patna on February 16, 2019, whereby and whereunder, the Trial Judge had held the appellant guilty for committing offence under Sections 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life till the end of his natural life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It directed the appellant to be released at once.

On the basis of an oral statement made by one Jawahar Kumar Ray of village Mohaddipur, which was reduced to writing by Sub-Inspector, K. N. Paswan on December 17, 2007, S.K. Puri P.S Case of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. It was alleged by the informant that at the relevant point when the alleged incident took place, he used to reside at New Punaichak, Jhuggi-Jhopadpatti by the side of the railway line within Police Station-S. K. Puri. On December 16, 2007 in the evening, the wife of the informant, namely, Kachan Devi sent her daughter, since deceased, aged about 8 years, to collect waste papers. At that place, the appellant was also present. His child also went to collect papers. When the informant returned at about 08:30 P.M. on December 16, 2006, after pulling rickshaw, he did not find his minor daughter at home. He and his wife conducted a search for their daughter at nearby area and asked the local people about her whereabouts but the local people failed to give any reply to them. Then they suspected that his daughter might be in the room of the appellant. He went to the house of the appellant to find out his daughter but found that the house 3/16 and the entrance gate of the appellant were locked and dark inside. 

On the following morning at about 07:00. A.M., the informant again conducted search of his daughter. 

During search, he peeped through the closed door of the room of the appellant and found that her daughter lying dead inside the room of the appellant. With the help of local people, the lock of the entrance gate and the door of the room were broken. The informant and others saw the dead body of her daughter having injuries and scratch marks all over her body. Her undergarment and pant were found open and blood was found near her buttock. He suspected that the appellant who was also residing at the relevant point of time at New Punaichak, Jhuggi-Jhopadpatti committed rape upon his daughter and thereafter murdered her by throttling.

The S.H.O., S.K. Puri, Police Station instructed S.I. K. N. Paswan to take up the investigation of the case. During investigation, he recovered the dead body of the daughter of the informant; held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence; seized blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence; and one photocopy of voter identity card from the room of the appellant. He also examined available witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination to P.M.C.H. He also obtained forensic report of the seized blood- stained earth and wearing apparels of the victim.

On conclusion of investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC before the learned C.J.M., Patna on October 29, 2011. The Sessions Judge, Patna received the case record after commitment on January 4, 2012 and transferred the case to the 10th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Patna.

The Additional Sessions, 10th Court at Patna, received the case records and framed charge against the accused/appellant on May 9, 2012, punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. When the charge, so framed, was written over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty. Accordingly trial of the case commenced.

Justice Chaudhuri observed:"10. At the outset, we like to record that after commencement of trial, no sessions trial case can be transferred from one Trial Court to another by issuing administrative order by the learned Principle Sessions Judge, Patna. However, the said procedural wrong was committed by the learned Principle Sessions Judge by issuing memo no. 3052-3054 dated 4th of March, 2017, directing the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court at Patna to transfer the case to the 2nd Fast Track Court at Patna. 11. However, when the trial of the case was concluded by the learned 2nd Fast Track Court at Patna by passing judgement of conviction and sentence, we treat the above-mentioned anomaly as procedural irregularity and proceed with the hearing of the instant appeal.

During trial, in order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. 

20. The Trial Court convicted the appellant on the sole ground of recovery of dead body from the house of the appellant on the basis of presumption that since the dead body of the victim girl was found in the room of the appellant, he had special knowledge about what had happened to the deceased after she left her home in the evening of 16th of December, 2007. It was held by the Trial Court that the incident that took place with the victim after she departed her home to bring waste papers was within the special knowledge of the appellant and he failed to discharge his burden as to how the deceased was ravished and subsequently murdered.

Notably, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act discusses the burden of proof on a person who has knowledge of a specific fact, such as being the last person known to have been with the victim.

Justice Chaudhary observed: "23. It is needless to say that in order to convict someone on the basis of circumstantial evidence invoking the last seen theory, the prosecution is under primary obligation to prove the circumstance beyond any shadow of doubt, the chain of which must lead to the inescapable conclusion of that person committing the crime. 24. In criminal cases, where direct evidences are hard to found, the entire case depends on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidences imply when all the evidences are clubbed together to form a complete chain of events in such a way that the accused may be convicted. The chain of events, so formed, must be without any reasonable doubt. Each circumstances and the evidences from which the chain is formed should be individually proved as direct evidences. The circumstantial evidence is always direct and primary which means the fact from which the existence of the fact in issue to be inferred must be proved by direct evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances should be vested by absolute evidences and should form a complete chain to bring home the guilt of the accused without giving any alternative chance to any other hypothesis." 

He added:"25. In the instant case, there is absolutely no direct evidence against the appellant in support of the charge. Thus, the Trial Court bases its judgement of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 26. The only circumstance appearing against the appellant is that the dead body of the victim was found in his room in the morning of 17th of December, 2007. The victim was missing from the evening of 16th of December, 2007. Nobody saw the appellant enticing the victim to his house after her departure from her own house to bring some waste papers. 27. It is unfortunate to note that the incident took place on 16th of December, 2007. The appellant was arrested and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the strength of warrant of arrest on 7th of August, 2011. Charge- sheet was filed on 29th of October, 2011. Charge was framed against the accused on 9th of May, 2012...."

The Court concluded: "29. After hearing the appeal, we are unfortunately note that the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on consideration of inadmissible evidence. The prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the circumstances which were necessarily established beyond any shadow of doubt in order to come to a finding in support of hypothesis of guilt against the appellant. 30. This is a case where the appellant remained in custody for about 15 years though prosecution failed to produce any kind of evidence whatsoever against him during trial. However, we do not find any alternative but to lament for the unfortunate state of justice delivery system in our country and pray that timely justice shall be delivered both to the prosecution and defence in future. 31. In view of the above discussions, the instant Criminal Appeal is allowed on contest. 32. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

The transferee Court had received the record on March 10, 2017 and continued with the trial which was commenced before the 10th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Patna. From the date of arrest/production before the Court till date, he was in custody. The Trial Court delivered the impugned judgement on February 16, 2019. 

The appeal was filed before the High Court on May 22, 2019. The appeal was admitted for hearing by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court after a lapse of six years on March 28, 2025. Thereafter, date was fixed for production of lower court records on August 1, 2025. 28. Subsequently, a Coordinate Bench passed an order for substitute service of notice upon Respondent/informant by paper publication. The Coordinate Bench vide order, dated December 19, 2025 had refused the prayer for suspension of sentence and bail. 

Supreme Court grants liberty to Jan Suraaj Party to approach High Court for seeking fresh free and fair elections for Bihar Assembly

In Jan Suraaj Party v. The Election Commission of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 107/2026, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed an order dated February 6, 2026, granting liberty to it to approach the jurisdictional High Court. The writ petition was dismissed, as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty. Jan Suraaj Party had moved the Court seeking fresh free and fair elections for Bihar Assembly. The petition had sought declaration of the result of Assembly Election 2025, as null and void.It had challenged the state-wide scheme for women known as Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, wherein the Government of Bihar decided to provide financial help, through Direct Benefit Transfer, to one woman in every family by paying Rs.10,000/- to start self- employment. It had prayed for the direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare deployment of 1.80 lakh women beneficiaries hailing from the self-help group JEEVIKA on the polling booth in both phases of polling as illegal and unfair.  

A writ petition is filed by the Party under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the issuance of writ of issue writ of Mandamus, declaring the fresh addition of beneficiaries in the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, and payment to them in course of election as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to Articles 14, 21, 112, 202 and 324 of the Constitution of India. It had sought directions to the Election Commission of India to take appropriate action under Article 324 of Constitution of India and Section 123 of Representation of Peoples Act on Direct Benefit Transfer of Rs. 10,000 to 25-35 lakhs women voters during subsistence of M.C.C and in course of elections and thereafter as gratification/bribery/corrupt practices to benefit party in power in the State. 

In August 2025, the Government of Bihar, on the eve of the general assembly elections 2025, launched Mukhayamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana. The main objective was to provide financial support to one woman per family in Bihar to start a self-employment activity. The scheme stated that Rs 10,000 as the first instalment will be provided to all eligible women applicants who are members of Jeevika Self Help Groups, and further, additional assistance of Rs 2 lakh each will be provided by the government post assessment, however, after 6 months. The scheme benefits were to be given to women who were already registered with JEEVIKA; however, fresh applications for joining the self-help group were also invited. 

The petition reads: "The petitioner most respectfully submits that the then Government of Bihar resorted to corrupt practices to induce and allure the electors to vote in its favour by extending the benefit of Rs. 10,000/- each to be followed by Rs.2,00,000/- to new beneficiaries added post announcement of MCC and in course of elections; and the ECI failed miserably to put a check on such corrupt practices being adopted by the ruling party in the course of election schedule because of which it is humbly submitted that the election was vitiated as the other contestants/parties to the elections were deprived of level playing field which is a sheer violation of MCC, the Representation of People’s Act (RPA), 1951 and Articles 14 21 and 324 of the Constitution of India." 

It alleged: "It is most respectfully submitted that in course of elections and subsistence of M.C.C, new beneficiaries were added in the JEEVIKA and payments of Rs 10,000 were made to them. That the fresh addition to the DBT Scheme of estimated 25-35 lacs women voters during elections and same violates the principle of free and fair elections and principle of level playing field. The action of the State Government is an act actuated with malice to damage electoral prospects of the other parties and contenders and that the ECI failed miserably to put a check upon such corrupt practices being resorted to by the ruling government and has not followed guidelines issued by this Hon’ble Court and also its own guidelines dated 07.01.07 in compendium of Instructions Vol-III."

It also submitted that about 1.80 lac women members (beneficiaries) of the self-help group i.e JEEVIKA were deputed on polling booths as Volunteers in both phases of polling which has no basis, as JEEVIKA members (beneficiaries) are a non-government group and that most of them were beneficiaries of the DBT scheme, thus, their deputation on the polling booth can’t be called natural, fair and reasonable but were deputed for obvious reasons. 

The petition reads: "This action alone may shock the conscience of any common man to assume that such volunteers who had recently received the benefits under a Scheme, would be obviously biased in favour of the ruling Party, thereby influencing the election process and making it unfair".  It submitted "That the ECI failed to check that the instalment of DBT scheme were rolled out even on the date of proclamation of the M.C.C and announcement of election schedule in Bihar and even thereafter, during the course of election. DBT transfers were made even on days prior to polling, further, the ECI also failed to check that under the scheme in issue new beneficiaries were added during election process and the newly added beneficiaries number around 25-35 lacs (estimated) were added and paid Rs 10,000 each after proclamation of M.C.C and thereafter, which purely amounts to Bribery and thus, is a corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123 of the R.P.A." Now if Jan Suraj approaches the High Court, it will decide the fate of the result of Assembly Election 2025. 

Also read:Patna High Court dismisses PIL on bribery of voters during recent Bihar Legislative Assembly Election

Justice Ansul quashes, sets aside judgment of conviction, order of sentence by 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Excise, Jamui, modifies order by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur

In Aneesh Manjhi vs. The State of Bihar  (2026), Justice Ansul of Patna High Court delivered a 6-page judgement dated January 27, 2026 wherein, he quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated June 30, 2021 passed1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Excise, Jamui in a case of 2018. He took oath as a judge of the High Court on January 27, 2026, taking total number of working judges in the High Court to 38. The court has 53 sanctioned posts, which means that even after his joining, 15 posts still remain vacant. 

In his first judgement as judge, Justice Ansul observed:"....it appears that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case and all the witnesses are official witnesses and the breath analyzer machine has not been produced to substantiate the charge under Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and also there is nothing on record to suggest that whether breath analyzer machine was capable to give correct report. Again no blood test of accused seems to have been conducted which is a major flaw. The procedure for search and seizure has not been followed, therefore, it creates a serious doubt and thus the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him." 

The trial court had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and awarded sentence to a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and on default of payment of fine the appellant will have to suffer imprisonment for three months. The High Court noted that the appellant had already suffered prior to conviction, the same shall be adjusted against three months sentence. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from his liabilities of bail bonds and sureties.

As per fardbeyan of informant, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Singh, ASI, Malaypur Police Station, the case of the prosecution was that he had lodged a written report stating that on August 20, 2018 at about 14.30 o'clock when he along with his patrolling party proceeded he got an information on mobile that the appellant was in inebriated condition and creating nuisance in the locality. In order to verify his intoxicating condition, he was examined by breath analyzer machine and it was found that he has consumed 0.19 Ml alcohol, thereafter, on the basis of the written report the case, i.e., Malaypur P.S. Case was registered for the offences under Section 290 of the IPC and 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The trial court after perusal of materials collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant took cognizance on February 28, 2019 under Section 290 IPC and Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, thereafter, the charges were framed on May 4, 2019 under Section 290 IPC and Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 against the appellant, which was explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses.

 ---------------------------------------------------------0-----------------------------------------------------------------

Sentencing order by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur modified  

In Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Ansul of Patna High Court delivered a 7-page judgement dated January 27, 2026 wherein, he concluded:"13. Having carefully considered the witnesses', testimony and the medical evidence, I find no grounds to interfere with the appellant's conviction. 14. However, the matter arises out of a land dispute and no previous conviction has been proved against the appellant. He has remained in custody for six years six months and is facing prosecution for last nine years and is in his 30's. Taking a holistic view, ends of justice would be saved if he is sentenced to period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence."

The appeal was preferred by the appellant for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 9, 2021 and July 31, 2021 respectively passed by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in a case of 2019 which arose out of a P.S. Case of 2017, whereby the concerned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- only and for the offences under Section 504/34 IPC one year and six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- only. 

The prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant, namely, Harendra Singh (P.W.-2) was that the appellant who was the cousin of the informant Harendra Singh came to his native village on April 24, 2017. On the same day, due to a domestic dispute, the appellant, appellant's brother namely, Krishna Singh and his mother Parvati Devi were abusing the informant at around 02:00 P.M. and when the informant and his mother stopped them from abusing, the accused suddenly came out of the room with a pistol in his hand and fired a shot at the informant, which hit him on his back and he fell down. After falling down, the accused fired another shot. Upon the informant's shouting the accused left the house with the pistol in his hand and said that whoever comes in his way will be shot. The informant's father and a villager Yogendra Singh took the injured to the police station and then to Sadar Hospital Arrah for treatment where after primary treatment by the doctor, he was referred to P.M.C.H., Patna where he was treated from April 24, 2017 to April 29, 2017. During this period no statement was recorded by any police officer. Due to this, the informant gave a written application to Arrah Mufassil on May 1, 2017. Based on the written application of the informant, Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and other co-accused persons namely Krishna Singh and Parvati Devi. 

After completion of investigation and on the basis of materials collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer of this case submitted charge-sheet dated April 30, 2018 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant before the Trial Court. The trial court after perusal of materials collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant took cognizance on May 16, 2018 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, thereafter, the charges were framed on August 9, 2019 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 and 34 of the IPC against the appellant, which was explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. On the basis of evidences/circumstances which emerged during the trial, the trial court examined the appellant/accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein, he completely denied the evidences during the trial and claimed his complete innocence. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him. 

Justice Ansul observed: "11. It appears from perusal of record that altogether five witnesses have been examined during trial. P.W.-1, Sunaina Devi, who is mother of the informant has deposed that the appellant has shot two bullets which hit on the back of the informant. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. She has further deposed that due to partition of land in the family the present occurrence has taken place. P.W.-2, Harendra Singh, the informant of this case has supported the prosecution case as narrated above. P.W.-3, Rekha Devi has been declared hostile during trial. P.W-4, Dr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, who is the doctor and had examined the informant, has deposed that oval shaped wound injury below the neck, i.e., 0.6 cm X 0.4 cm was found on the informant. P.W-5, Sambhunath Panday, the Investigating Officer of this case has supported the case of the prosecution. 12. It also appears that there is delay of six days in lodging the FIR. The delay is sought to be explained by treatment at PMCH. It seems that neither the treatment record at PMCH nor the version provided at PMCH has been brought on record thus making the initial version unavailable. This casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution version in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393." Being aggrieved with the trial court's judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant had preferred the appeal before the High Court. 
 

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh

In Pravin Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated February 18, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "....we are of the considered view that prima facie the complaint seems to be with a flavour of civil dispute. That apart, investigation, if any, is to be done by the authorities, which would mainly revolve around the documentary evidence. As such, appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Appellant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Investigating Officer (IO) may deem fit to impose and also on the condition that appellant would appear before the jurisdictional court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason." 

With this it reversed the 5-page long order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of Patna High Court who had concluded: "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the seriousness of allegation against the petitioners. It is not fit case for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below concerned within ten weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners in accordance with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order." 

The appellant was arraigned as an accused in FIR of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The gist of the prosecution case was that appellant was a builder and Director of a company called City Green Infrastructure and had put up construction of apartments. One of the flats which was agreed to be sold to one of its customers, with whom the project proponent had a dispute, was not delivered the possession of the flat as agreed under the agreement and the amount paid as consideration was also not refunded; as such the issue regarding the same was pending before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority of Bihar established  under section 20 (1) of  the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. In the meanwhile, the purchaser initiated the criminal prosecution, which resulted in the FIR being registered against the appellant. 

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner no.2 (Arvind Sharma) Infrastructure along with his two partners namely Pravin Kumar (petitioner no.1) and Saurabh Kumar was developing an apartment on the land measuring 34 katha 12 dhur of Ishri Lal Yadav and Mishri Lal Yadav situated in front of Malti Kunj Apartment. It was also alleged that in the said apartment, the informant purchased flat no. 201 with parking in the ‘B’ Block in the year 2016 for total consideration of Rs. 26 lakhs, on February 23, 2018, a registered agreement was executed by the builder. On May 16, 2019, the informant paid 90% of the amount through bank and further on December 10, 2020, the informant paid Rs. 1,18,000/- as GST amount. On June 24, 2022, Rs. 1,36,800/- was paid as GST amount i.e. in total Rs. 2,54,800/- has been paid as GST. It is further alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,36,800/- was wrongly demanded by the builder which was more than the actual amount of the GST. As per the agreement, the ownership was to be transferred till September 30 2020 but till date neither the registration nor the work of the apartment has been completed and due to these acts, the informant was facing financial and mental hardship and alleged that the breach of trust was committed against him by the manager and his two partners. 

The appellant had approached the Supreme  Court for anticipatory bail because Justice Singh of the High Court did not grant him relief. 

Patna High Court detects error in sentencing order by Birendra Kumar Choubey as Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS, asks trial court to rectify its defect within one week

In Nav Kumar Ojha vs. The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Praveen Kumar passed an order dated February 18, 2026. The order reads: "Let the certified copy of the impugned judgment be sent down to the learned trial court pointing out the defect. On receipt of the same, the learned trial court shall look into the same and send a duly corrected copy of the impugned judgment to this Court within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the communication....3. List this case on 12.03.2026 under appropriate heading." The order was authored by Justice Prasad. Dr. Gopal Krishna is the counsel for the appellant. Out of the four accused persons in the N.C.B Case No. 01 of 2021, Nav Kumar Ojha, a resident of Bokaro, Jharkhand is the third person who was convicted by Birendra Kumar Choubey, 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Cum, Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara, in N.D.P.S. Case No.- 06 of 2021. The four named accused persons were: 1. Shankar Yadav, 2. Pritam Lakda, 3. Bijendra Kumar Rai and 4. Nav Kumar Ojha. Bijendra Kumar Rai, the third accused was acquitted by the trial court.  

Nav Kumar Ojha, the appellant in question was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 20 (B)(ii)(C) and section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The appellant has preferred the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated May 9, 2023 and order of sentence dated May 17, 2023 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Cum, Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara. 

The Registry of the High Court has pointed out that "Year of sentence at last page of I.O is not matching with 1st page (below chart)". The year of sentence on last page of the impugned order (I.O.), the trial court's sentencing order is 2023 but the year of sentencing order on the 1st page is 2022. 

Significantly, the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Ara, Bhojpur did not find sufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy against the three accused persons including Nav Kumar Ojha. Therefore, he exonerated them of offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.  

Section 29 of the Act deals with "Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy" It reads:—(1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. (2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which—(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India. 

It is evident from the joint reading of the trial court's judgement and Section 29 that Nav Kumar Ojha is not involved in any criminal conspiracy. It is also crystal clear that he is neither an abettor nor a party.   

Granting benefit of doubt with regard to accusations under Section 20 (B) (ii), (C) and Sections 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, he acquitted Bijendra Kumar Rai, the main accused and released him from judicial custody. 

In the concluding sentence of his 84 page long judgement dated May 9, 2023, Virendra Kumar Choubey, Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII fixed May 17, 2023 for hearing on the point of sentencing, eight days after his date of posting-May 9, 2023-as Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Madhepura.  

In the sentencing order dated May 17, 2023, Virendra Kumar Choubey, Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII sentenced Shankar Yadav, Pritam Lakra and Nav Kumar Ojha of 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 1 lakh. In case the fine is not submitted, the convicts will have to remain in prison for another six months.      

Notably, as per High Court's website, the judge in question was posted as District and Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura on May 9, 2023, i.e. the date on which he delivered the judgment of conviction dated May 9, 2023 as 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Cum, Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara, in N.D.P.S. Case No.- 06 of 2021. He passed the order of sentence on May 17, 2023. 

It is apparent that there is another error which has escaped High Court's attention. Is it possible for a judge remain posted at Bhojpur and Madhepura at the same time?. Is it possible for a judge to pass an order of sentence as 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Cum, Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara and be posted at Madhepura District and Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura on May 17, 2023?

Also read: Criminal appeal of Jharkhand residents in NDPS case related to 9 quintals of ganja is before the High Court  

Patna High Court seized with NDPS case of 2021, driver Shankar Yadav was to get Rs 15,000, Pritam Lakra worked pro bono