Trial court records withheld in Bihar, Supreme Court takes note of "incurable injustice" in a murder case, sets aside judgements by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah

In Sanjay Sah & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 10-page long order dated February 12, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....we are of the opinion that incurable injustice was done to the appellants in the course of their examination under Sections 313 of the Code, as no specific questions were put to them apropos each piece of incriminating evidence adduced against them. The judgments of the trial court based on such inadequate examination of the accused, therefore, cannot be sustained. The High Court was also in error in overlooking this crucial aspect and in confirming the conviction and sentences visited upon the appellants. We, accordingly, set aside the judgments passed by the High Court and also the judgments of conviction and the orders of sentence passed by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, Bihar, in Sessions Trial Nos. 403/2009 and 936/2007 (both arising out of FIR/Case No. 15/2007 dated 25.01.2007 registered with Police Station–Adapur, District–East Champaran, Bihar) Sessions Trial Nos. 403/2009 and 936/2007 shall stand restored on the file of the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, Bihar, to enable fresh examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code strictly in accordance with the legal parameters applicable thereto. As we are informed that the appellants were on bail, prior to their conviction and sentencing, they would be entitled to the same relief pending the fresh exercise to be undertaken by the trial court. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed in the aforestated terms. The appellants shall be released on bail on such appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the trial court, pending the exercise to be undertaken by the trial court pursuant to this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." The Appellant no. 2 was Awadhesh Kumar Gupta @Awadhesh Sah. The private Respondents were: Ram Sevak Sah, Ashok Sah, Madan Sah and  Srilal Sah. The tagged matters included Ram Sevak Sah vs. The State of Bihar and Mahanth Sah vs. The State of Bihar.

Although Supreme Court had directed the Registry to requisition the trial court records, being of the opinion that the aforestated judgments warranted interference, the Court records that "trial court records have not yet been received. Instead of awaiting receipt of the records, we deem it appropriate to resort to the alternative that is available to us, that is, to remit the matter to the trial court instead of undertaking adjudication of these appeals on merit." On January 21, 2026, the Court had ordered: "Registry shall requisition the trial court records at the earliest and undertake translation of documents in vernacular, if any. E-copies of the trial court records, once received, shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties." 

Earlier, on  September 2, 2025, Court's Division Bench of Justices Kumar and Alok Aradhe had passed an order which recorded that the counsel for the State of Bihar had sought "some time to examine whether there was a separate examination by the trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731, and if so, file a copy thereof. Registry may also call for the record of the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., if any, from the trial Court/High Court." In its order dated November 12, 2025, the Court recorded that Azmat Hayat Amanullah, counsel for the State of Bihar was present in the Court. "The learned counsel states that it would not be necessary to file a counter affidavit in this matter."

These appeals arose out of the 56-page long judgment dated March 6, 2025 passed by the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Nani Tagia in Ram Sevak Shah & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (2026), and 58-page long judgement in Laxman Sah & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (2026), confirming the conviction and the sentences visited upon the appellants, vide judgments dated August 27, 2016 and September 2, 2016, passed by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, Bihar, in Sessions Trial Nos. 403/2009 and 936/2007 (both arising out of FIR/Case No. 15/2007 dated January 25, 2007 registered with Police Station – Adapur, District – East Champaran, Bihar). The trial court had convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with payment of fines. Both the High Court's judgements of the Division Bench were authored by Justice Shah. In the former Sanjay Sah, Awadhesh Sah, Ashok Sah, Madan Sah and Srilal Sah were the appellants besides Ram Sevak Shah. In the latter Inar Sah, Vijay Sah Son, Ajay Sah, Mahanth Sah and Ramekbal Sah were the appellants besides Laxman Sah.   

In the penultimate paragraph of his judgement in both Ram Sevak Shah case and Laxman Sah case, Justice Shah had concluded:"Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence, which has been brought on record to prove the allegations levelled against the appellants beyond pale of any reasonable doubt as well as considering the credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of the prosecution, which has not been discredited during the course of cross-examination coupled with the postmortem report and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we find that there is no reason to create any doubt in our minds. We have examined the materials available on record and do not find any apparent error in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence, the same does not require any interference." 

The order reads: "We find from the material placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellants that the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 19731, was brief to the point of being cryptic and was limited to just three questions. The first question was as to whether the accused had heard the statement of the witnesses. The second question was as follows:- “There is an allegation against you that on 24th February 2007 at 06.30 A.M., in village Harpur, police station Harpur, district East 1 For short “the Code”Champaran, you along with other accused for the fulfillment of a common purpose, killed Shivnath Shah, brother of Suresh Prasad, the complainant in this Case, by hitting with sticks, what do you have to say in this regard?” The third question was as to whether the accused had something to say in his defence. The aforestated three questions were posed to one of the accused/appellants, namely, Mahanth Sah. However, the same format was adopted for examination of the remaining accused. This is not in dispute. Needless to state, the aforestated casual examination of the accused falls woefully short of the required standard, as stipulated by law. This Court has emphasized this point, time and again." 

The Court referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 385. Therein, a 3-Judge Bench of the Court observed that it is the duty of the public prosecutor to assist the trial court in recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code; if the court omits to put any material circumstances brought on record against the accused, the public prosecutor must bring it to the notice of the court while the examination of the accused is being recorded; he must assist the court in framing the questions to be put to the accused; and as it is the duty of the public prosecutor to ensure that those who are guilty of the commission of offence must be punished, it is also his duty to ensure that there are no infirmities in the conduct of the trial, which will cause prejudice to the accused. 

The Court recollected its earlier decision by a 3-Judge Bench in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra”(1973) 2 SCC 793, wherein the in pari materia provision in the erstwhile Code was under consideration and it was observed that great care is expected of Sessions Judges, who try grave cases to collect every incriminating circumstance and put it to the accused. 

 

.

Supreme Court sets aside part of conditional bail order by Justice Purnendu Singh

In Mithilesh Kumar Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan passed a 3-page long order dated February 13, 2026 wherein, it concluded:".....we set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which the High Court has directed the petitioner to appear before the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of mediation. 9. The rest of the part of the order granting anticipatory bail is not touched." 

The Supreme Court recorded that "there are some civil litigations also pending between the parties." Justice Singh too had observed:"4. Considering the nature of dispute to be purely civil in nature and the parties are contesting Civil Suit No. 135 of 2024 for specific performance of contract since 17.03.2025, at
the same time, I find that the parties can resolve their dispute outside the Court amicably by way of mediation. 5. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Court on 25.09.2025 at 10.30 am." As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner and his son had committed forgery with the informant by receiving Rs. 55 lacs for executing a piece of land appertaining to Khata No. 130, Khesra Nos. 220 measuring total area two Bigha.

Notably, Justice Purnendu Singh had passed a 3-page long order dated September 10, 2025, wherein, he had concluded: "6. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary action to refer the matter before the learned mediator of the District Mediation Center. 7. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute amicably between the parties and thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a period of three months, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case.8. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to appear on 25.09.2025 at 10.30 am. before the learned District Court or on any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force. 9. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. 10. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of."

Supreme Court observed:"6. The High Court thought fit to grant anticipatory bail but at the same time directed the petitioner to go for mediation. 7. We are of the view that once the High Court was convinced that a case was made out for grant of anticipatory bail, then the Court should not have asked the petitioner-accused to go for mediation." 

The petitioner, an aged person, had prayed for anticipatory bail before the High Court in connection with a Khanpur Police Station case of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(1), 308(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, respectively.  Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner was one of forgery and cheating. 

 

 

Supreme Court asserts "court's permission needed to arrest accused for offence added post grant of bail"

In Sumit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan concluded:“In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.” It held that an accused who is already on bail cannot be automatically re-arrested by the investigating agency merely because a new cognizable and non-bailable offence has been added in the charge sheet.

The Court observed that the investigating agency cannot automatically arrest the accused only because new offences have been added. The  agency must first obtain an appropriate order from the court that granted bail before proceeding with the arrest in respect of the newly added offence.

It examined what the legal position would be in such circumstances and whether the  agency could directly arrest the accused based on the newly added offences alone.

Drawing on its decision in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi, the recollected the following principles:

(i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In the event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested.

(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively for arrest of the accused and his custody.

(iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of its power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) respectively can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.

(iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal in a dowry death case against the Allahabad High Court's order granting a limited benefit of an anticipatory bail to the Appellant, the brother-in-law of the deceased victim. The High Court had ordered that the anticipatory bail order would be in operation till the filing of the charge sheet. 

Following High Court's denial of the extension of the anticipatory bail pursuant to the filing of the charge sheet, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.

Referring to 5-Judge Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court set aside the High Court's order. It observed: “once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry.”, and “the filing of a charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate protection unless special reasons are recorded.”

Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of the anticipatory bail to the Appellant. 

"preventive detention cannot be sustained on the basis of stale, vague, or indefinite allegations": Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

In Huzaif Ahmad Dar vs. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. (2026), Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal delivered a 6-page long judgement dated January 29, 2026, wherein it concluded:"....we are of the considered view that the judgment impugned in this appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is set aside. Resultantly, order of detention bearing Order No. 09/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.04.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag (respondent No. 2) under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, being unsustainable in law is, accordingly, quashed. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case."  The judgement was authored by Justice Oswal. 

The High Court observed: "It is a well-settled principle of law that preventive detention cannot be sustained on the basis of stale, vague, or indefinite allegations. The detaining authority is under a mandated constitutional obligation to furnish clear, precise, and proximate grounds. This requirement is a prerequisite to enabling the detenu to exercise his/her right to make an 'effective representation,' a fundamental safeguard guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India." 

Justice Oswal relied upon the judgment of the Supreme court in Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr, (1989) 3 SCC 590, wherein it has been held that the order of detention passed on vague grounds deprives the petitioner of his right to make an effective representation against the order of detention." He also referred to Supreme Court's decision in Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik vs. State of Maharashtra’ (2012) 8 SCC 233, wherein the Court held: “27. As regards the second contention, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the delay in passing the detention order, namely, after 15 months vitiates the detention itself. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though there is no hard and fast rule and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf, however, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, it is incumbent on the part of the court to scrutinize whether the Detaining Authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a reasonable and acceptable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned. 28. It is also the duty of the court to investigate whether casual connection has been broken in the circumstance of each case. We are satisfied that in the absence of proper explanation for a period of 15 months in issuing the order of detention, the same has to be set aside. Since, we are in agreement with the contentions relating to delay in passing the Detention Order and serving the same on detenue, there is no need to go into the factual details.”

Drawing on these decisions, Justice Oswal observed: ".....the impugned detention order, founded on vague, stale, and unsupported material, cannot be sustained. 14.We have carefully examined the judgment rendered by the learned Writ Court and are of the considered view that the issues noticed and discussed hereinabove have not been adequately addressed and, in fact, have escaped the attention of the learned Writ Court.

Patna High Court delivered 17 judgments on Feb. 3

Patna High Court delivered 17 judgments on February 3, 2026 in Md. Pappu @ Md. Saba Uddin vs. The State of Bihar, Ram Janam Prasad vs. The State of Bihar, Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar, Ram Bilas Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Anubhuti Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar, Vikas Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Rajiv Kumar Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar, Manju Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Prawin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Anmol Kumar Sowarnkar @ Anmol Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Hari Shankar Kashyap vs. The State of Bihar, Arun Kumar Roy vs. The State of Bihar, Anupam Dvivedi vs. The State of Bihar, Vishalakshi vs. The State of Bihar, Mithun Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Atendra Thakur vs. The State of Bihar and Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited vs. M/s Tirhut Food Products.

Patna High Court delivered five judgements on Feb. 4

Patna High Court delivered five judgements on February 4, 2026 in Pramod Kumar Premi vs. The State of Bihar, Kanhaiya Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Apollo Trauma Centre, Represented through Dr. Rajat Kumar, The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Krishna City Hospital Represented through Dr. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, The Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Guptaji brothers Rice Mill Pvt.

Patna High Court delivered 13 judgements on Feb. 5

Patna High Court delivered 13 judgements on February 5, 2026 in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. vs. Mustari Khatoon, Shubham Kumar vs. The Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board, Guddu Miyan @ Haider Ali @ Guddu Khan vs. The State of Bihar, Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Shashikant Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Mukesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Ram Bahadur Prasad, vs. State of Bihar, Lok Prakash Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Seraj Anwar vs. The State of Bihar, Garbhu Sah vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Sipahi Mahto @ Anil Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna and Sonu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.