Will Bankipur pay heed to lessons from Katha Upanishad?

The tale of a library and a club on the bank of Ganga in Bankipur has lessons which are yet to be decoded. 

The Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Bankipur was opened for public in October 1891 by Khan Bahadur Khuda Bakhsh, a native of Chhapra. The library was declared an institution of national importance by an act of Parliament in 1969.

Bankipur Club was founded in 1865 by James Patrick Willoughby Johnston, a British colonial police and intelligence officer who served extensively in the Indian Police (IP) within the Bihar and Orissa cadre. 

The library culture arrived after the arrival of club culture. 

From the earliest times, there is an unending conflict between library culture and club culture is an eternal conflict. It is the conflict between the pleasurable (preyas) and the preferable (shreyas), which is one of the subjects of the Katha Upanishad. It is the constant struggle between The Pleasant and The Good. 

In the immortal Nachileta-Yama dialogue Katha Upanishad says:

अन्यत् श्रेयः उत अन्यत् एव प्रेयः। ते उभे नानार्थे सती पुरुषं सिनीतः। 

तयोः श्रेयः आददानस्य साधु भवति उ सः अर्थात् हीयते यः प्रेयः वृणीते ॥

श्रेयश्च प्रेयश्च मनुष्यमेतः तौ सम्परीत्य विविनक्ति धीरः ।

श्रेयो हि धीरोऽभि प्रेयसो वृणीते प्रेयो मन्दो योगक्षेमाद्वृणीते ॥

"The joy of the preferable ever abides, but not what seems pleasant to the senses. Both these, differing in their purpose, prompt humans to action. All is well for those who choose the joy of the preferable, but they miss the goal of life who prefer the pleasant.

Perennial joy or passing pleasure? This is the choice one is to make always. The wise recognize these two, but not the ignorant. The first welcome what leads to abiding joy, though painful at the time. The latter run, goaded by their senses, after what seems immediate pleasure."

The defeat of the natives in the 1757 and 1764, paved the way for the beneficial owners of British East India Company which entered India through Surat, Gujarat in the early 17th century to set up a rubber factory. The rubber was very elastic, it reached  Bengal and Bihar in mid 18th century before reaching Allahabad and Delhi. In early 19th century, the beneficial owners of the erstwhile company made Bankipur, a strategic location for the colonial State besides Danapur. The British settlement used to be in Bankipur although till the late 19th century, it was like a village. 

Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy, the legendary physician and former Chief Minister of West Bengal, was born in Bankipore, Patna, on 1 July 1882 before Bihar’s separation from Bengal in 1912. On June 30,1917, The Bihar Herald had published a satirical article criticizing the renaming of railway stations in the newly created Bihar. The fact remains renaming creates cognitive dissonance and has undecipherable cognitive costs. 

Out of five chapters, in at least two chapters of the book Provincial Metropolis: Intellectuals and The Hinterland in Colonial India (2025), published by Cambridge University Press, David Boyk dwells on the significance of Bankipur. 

The elite residents of Bankipur had played a significant role in the separation of Bihar from Bengal. The facts remains that the communities of Bengal and Bihar are communities of the same fate.  

The colonial state had developed Bankipur region, away from Patna city. Modern Patna developed around Bankipur. It emerged as one of the most educated constituencies of Bihar with a cosmopolitan outlook beyond sectarian considerations. Although these beneficial owners ruled India for some 200 years, the natives of Bankipur and elsewhere are yet to comprehend that all history is contemporary history and are yet to decode how narratives are weaponised. 

Have lessons been learnt from the defeat of 1757, 1764 and 1857?

If communities of Bankipur have to teach moral science to their children and grand children, will they not teach them the art of segregating the preferable from the pleasurable? For long unwise common sense club has been chosen disregarding library of good sense? Will the library get preference over the club? 

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court sets aside impugned order by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Siwan along with consequential proceedings

In Jitendra Kumar Sah vs. The State Of Bihar (2026), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 8-page long judgement dated July 27, 2026, wherein, he allowed the petition and set aside impugned order dated December 6, 2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Siwan along with all its consequential proceedings qua petitioner. He took note of the date of lodging the FIR, the vehicle in issue was registered in the name of this petitioner and furthermore, the mobile phone was released in favour of this petitioner after due verification, accordingly, nothing incriminating appears against this petitioner as to proceed with any criminal case. 

Justice Jha relied on the guiding notes as available through Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

Supreme Court upholds judgments by Justices Ajay Kumar Tripathi and Hemant Gupta

In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Gupta and Sheel Nagu passed a 3-page long order dated July 23, 2026, wherein, it upheld the judgements by Patna High Court. The civil appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated April 7, 2016 of the High Court which arose out of an order dated May 18, 2015 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the appellant’s writ petition. The Supreme Court concluded;"5. We are at a loss to comprehend as to how the appellant could qualify the Class XII examination in 1970, before he qualified in the matriculation examination of 1971. 6. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was absolutely justified in not entertaining the writ petition as well as the intra- court appeal. 7. We also record that this is a matter, where no leave ought to have been granted in the first place. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstance noted above, the civil appeal is dismissed. 9. Time to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in terms of the impugned order dated 07th April, 2016 is extended by a month from date."

In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt.
of Bihar & Ors. (2016), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a 3-page long judgement dated April 7, 2016, wherein, it had concluded:"The appellant has referred to the certificate of Madhyama wherein 5.6.1955 has been shown as his date of birth. The appellant has played smart giving two dates of birth – one in the Madhyama ertificate which is more suitable date in case of employment and another in the records of the Matriculation examination. It is a clear case of fraud, which has been rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge under the order impugned herein. Even after the finding of the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant was vehemently persistent in pursuing the present appeal to say that the order under challenge in the writ application was issued without giving an opportunity of hearing. On admitted facts, we do not find that any opportunity of hearing  decision. The principal of natural justice does not follow any straight-jacket formula. When the facts are apparent, opportunity of hearing may not be required. Keeping in view the admitted fact that the Matriculation certificate of the appellant bears the date of birth as 5.6.1952, the result would be that the appellant would superannuate on the date from which, he has been made to retire.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) to be paid by the appellant to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority within one month from today." The judgement was authored by Justice Gupta upon hearing the order under challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court on May 18, 2015, whereby the writ application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of retirement on the basis of date of birth of the appellant as June 5, 1952. 

The grievance of the appellant was that the appellant was made to retire by an ex parte order without giving an opportunity of hearing, therefore the order of retirement is not sustainable.  

In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar (2015), Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi dismissed the writ petition by his 2-page long judgement dated May 18, 20215. Justice Tripathi had concluded:"In the opinion of the Court, not only the impugned order is not required to be interfered with but the Sanskrit Shiksha Board or the State will be well advised to file a complaint case against the petitioner itself for his conduct and fraud on the face of record. Let the petitioner prove his innocence before the forum after institution of such a case." The other six respondents were: 2. The Special Director, Secondary Education, (Sanskrit), Education Department, Government of Bihar, 3. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Secretary, Patna, 4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, 5. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna,  6. The District Education Officer, Patna and 7. The District Programme Officer, Patna. 

The judgement recorded that if the petitioner did not deny that he had sat for matriculation examination in the year 1971 and had declared his date of birth to be June 5, 1952 then merely because he went ahead and acquired some more certificates and degrees like Madhayama, Uttar Madhayama etc., the date of birth cannot change. The educational qualification can be acquired through various norms and institutions but man cannot be born again and again before every examination.  The order dated December 15, 2014, by virtue of which petitioner had been asked to superannuate treating his date of birth to be June 5, 1952. The petitioner had filed the writ application that it is his 1955 date of birth as available in Uttar Madhyama certificate, which should be treated to be the correct date of birth. 

Justice Tripathi had observed: "Since the petitioner has not denied existence of two different dates of birth and two different certificates relating to him, this is a clear case of fraud played by the petitioner in seeking appointment under the respondents." 

Patna High Court all set to hear election petition against Nitish Mishra, the Jhanjharpur MLA on August 5

In Ram Narayan Yadav vs. Nitish Mishra & Ors! (2026), Patna High Court has admitted the election petition. The notice has been issued to him and others. The case is listed for hearing on August 5, 2026.

Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna has filed an Election Petition on behalf of Ram Narayan Yadav, one of the candidates of the Communist Party of India (CPI). The candidate is one of 33 seats Left parties contested. Left parties secured only 3 seats. The result of the 2025 Bihar Assembly election was announced on November 14, 2025

CPI had fielded nine candidates for Bihar Assembly Election 2025 but all of them lost.

Under Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 there is a provision to challenge the validity of any election, irregularities in counting or violation of rules through election petition. The High Court has accepted the petition.

In exercise of powers under Section 80(A) (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court has nominated Justices S. B. P. Singh and Ashok Kumar Pandey to receive, try and hear the Election Petitions against election of Bihar Legislative Assembly, 2025 under Rule 6 of the Chapter XXI-E of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916.

The filing of thispetitions has created uncertainty for the newly elected MLA. Now it is for the Court to decide Mishra's fate.

Also read:Ram Narayan Yadav challenges election of Nitish Mishra, the MLA from Jhanjharpur, Madhubani

Can any sane person applaud “swiftness” of passage of legislations without completing process of three readings of the Bills under Article 107?

Disregarding any pretense of pre-legislative Consultation, and feigning ignorance about Pre-legislative Consultation Policy, 2014, which was formulated by the Committee of Secretaries under the Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary on January 10, 2014, on July 22, Bihar Assembly passed 13 key Bills, including legislation on prison reforms, private universities, urban development, ease of doing business, crime control, panchayat governance and the establishment of new specialised universities without meaning full discussion and deliberation. The Bills were not referred to multi-party select committees. The assembly did not incorporate the amendments  in the bill. These Bills are:

1. Bihar Urban Development Bill 2026
2. Bihar Private University (Amendment) Bill 2026 in the name of improving access to quality education, reducing migration of students to other states, retaining educational spending within Bihar and to create more academic opportunities for youth.
3. Bihar Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Repeal) Bill 2026
4. Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Bill 2026, , for stricter penalties for undervaluation of property during registration; 
5. Registration (Bihar Amendment) Bill 2026
6. Bihar Ease of Doing Business Bill 2026
7. Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Bill 2026
8. Bihar Prison and Correctional Services Bill 2026
9. Bihar Crime Control (Amendment) Bill 2026
10. Bihar Specific University Bill 2026
11. Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science University Bill 2026
12. Bihar Engineering University (Amendment) Bill 2026
13. Shaheed Jubba Sahni Architecture and Civil Engineering University Bill 2026.

Earlier, on July 21, the passing of seven Bills in the Assembly within one hour showed the "swift" work of the government without any legislative debate.  

These Bills: 1. Bihar Gambling (Prohibition) Bill, 2026, 

2. Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2026,  

3. Bihar Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) (Repeal) Bill, 2026, 

4. Bihar Land Mutation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, 

5. Bihar Medical (Amendment) Bill, 2026, 

6. Bihar Nurses Registration (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and 

7. Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

These Bills were passed hurriedly when the opposition parties had walked out in protest against the lathi charge on students and youth. 

The passage of these Bills with such exemplary swiftness is a lesson for all the present and future legislators. It shows how the legislators were not give sufficient time to prepare for the deliberation on Bills. Can any sane person applaud such “swiftness” of government’s work?

A day may come when High Court or Supreme Court will declare them ultra vires on the ground that these bills were passed without due diligence.   

The Bills Originating in the legislative council involves three readings. 

First Reading: The legislative process starts with the introduction of the Bill in either the legislative assembly or the legislative council with permission .It is necessary to ask for leave to introduce the Bill. IIf leave is granted by the House, the Bill is introduced. This constitutes the First Reading of the Bill. After a Bill has been introduced, it is published in the Official Gazette as soon as possible. Subsequent to introduction of the Bills, in the council or the assembly, the same may be referred to the legislative committees by the presiding officer of the legislature for examination and report. 

Second Reading: The Second Reading consists of consideration of the Bill which is in two stages. The first stage consists of a discussion on the Bill as a whole when only the principles of the Bill and its provisions are discussed in general. The presiding officer can refer the Bill to a Select Committee.  In the case of a Bill having been referred to a Select/Joint Committee, the Committee considers the Bill clause-
by-clause just as the House does. Amendments can be moved to the various clauses by members of the Committee. The Committee can also take evidence of associations, public bodies or experts who are interested in the measures. After the Bill has thus been considered, the Committee submits its report to the House which considers the Bill as reported on by the Committee. 

The second stage of the Second Reading consists of a clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as introduced or as reported by Select/ Joint Committee. Discussion takes place on each clause of the Bill and amendments to clauses can be moved at this stage.  After the clauses, the schedules, if any, the Enacting Formula, Long Title and Short Title of the Bill have been adopted by the House, the Second Reading is deemed to be over.

Third Reading: Thereafter, the Member-in-charge can move that the Bill (or the Bill, as amended) be passed. This stage is known as the Third Reading of the Bill. At this stage debate is confined to arguments either in support of the Bill or for its rejection, without referring to the details thereof further than is absolutely necessary. Only formal, verbal or consequential amendments are allowed at this stage. When passing an ordinary Bill, a simple majority of the Members present and voting is sufficient.

The record of the proceedings of the Bihar legislature can reveal how most of the Bills passed did not complete the process of the three readings of the Bills.   A careful reading of the constitution and the rules of the house demonstrates that Bills passed without discussion cannot be deemed constitutional. Article 107 of the Constitution states that no Bill shall be deemed to have been passed unless both Houses have agreed to it. The word “agreed” has been presumably used with intent. There cannot be agreement to a proposal without discussion. The word "agreement" presupposes discussion. The term "agreed" means mutual assent. It reflects the fundamental "meeting of the minds". Can there be mutual assent without discussion in the legislature? 

P.D.T. Acharya is former secretary general of the Lok Sabha says, "Experience shows that the government immensely benefits from this detailed scrutiny. A much-refined Bill results in a better law and less litigation. The people need better laws, and parliament owes it to them. A Bill introduced in the midst of din and passed within a few minutes. It is passed by a voice vote of the treasury benches. This is such a ridiculously mechanical exercise that everyone, including those who voted, end up losing all respect for the sanctity of lawmaking. Laws are made without the lawmakers knowing much about what laws they have made. Lawmaking is too serious a business to be cavalierly handled by the uninitiated, who want quick passage without scrutiny. This is certainly going to affect citizens because an unscrutinised Bill may retain harmful provisions. No democratic parliament in the world passes Bills without detailed discussion and scrutiny. If the house is not in order, no business can be transacted until order is restored. It is the responsibility of the government of the day to create conditions conducive to the smooth running of the House." He added: what Article 107 of the Constitution makes clear is that Bills shall be deemed to have been passed only when both Houses discuss them and then agree to them. The makers of the constitution could have used the word “passed” in place of “agreed”. The word “passed” appropriately refers to the act of passing, namely, the voting etc. But they wanted both houses to fully discuss legislative proposals before agreeing to them. Hence the word “agreed”. Discussion is implied in this word.

The Rules for passing Bills have been framed under this Article 107. If legislature passes a Bill without discussion and scrutiny, it may end up as a bad law which would be detrimental to citizens. The passing of Bills without discussion in legislature constitutes a violation of Article 107 and the rules of the house, and are fit case for judicial intervention.

The total disregard for pre-legislative consultation in their drafting, make these Bills illegitimate. Aren't the passage of these Bills, case laws to study, what legislature should not do pass Bills? 

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha sets aside order of cognizance by CJM, Gopalganj with all its consequential proceedings in a Complaint Case of 2016

In Kishori Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 6-page long judgment dated July 24, 2026 concluded that in view of factual and legal submissions and "by taking note of fact as the effective disputes between the parties, prima-facie appears land dispute being coparcener for which a title suit is already pending between the parties since 2013 i.e., Title Suit No.309/2013, where petitioners are coparcener, accordingly this court is convinced that present criminal case was filed out of oblique motive to settle the land dispute by lodging this criminal prosecution, which is prima-facie un-occasioned and unwarranted. Accordingly, by taking note of legal ratio as mentioned in Bhajan Lal Case (supra) & Rikhab Birani Case (supra), impugned order of cognizance dated 22.11.2017 with all its consequential proceedings, qua, all above named petitioners arising thereof as passed in Complaint Case No. 3727 of 2016, pending before learned CJM, Gopalganj is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Hence, this application stands allowed."

The quashing petition was preferred for quashing the order dated November 22, 2017 passed in TR No.2525/2017 which arose out of Complaint Case No. 3727/2016 passed by CJM, Gopalganj where cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 

Justice Jha recorded that despite repeated calls Dhrup Narayan Singh, the Opposite Party No. 2, failed to join the present proceedings. 

The prosecution case, as stated in the complaint petition, was that Mahanth Rai had four sons, namely Daroga Singh, Dharmnath Singh, Sipahi Singh and Kapildeo Singh. Kapildeo Singh died leaving behind two sons, Uday Narayan Singh and Dhup Narayan Singh, and two daughters, Radha Devi and Rema Devi,
while the other three sons died issueless. Dhup Narayan Singh had two sons, Krishna Pratap Singh and Chandan Kumar Singh, and three daughters, Kishori Devi, Rekha Kumari and Simple Kumari, of whom Kishori Devi was married to accused no. 5. It was alleged that accused no. 5, in connivance with others, falsely claimed Rakesh Ranjan Singh and his wife to be the son-in-law and daughter of Uday Narayan Singh and started executing sale deeds in respect of valuable ancestral lands without partition, compelling the complainant to institute Partition Suit No. 309/2013 before the Court of the Sub-Judge-XI, Gopalganj. Despite having knowledge of the pending partition suit, petitioner no(s). 1 and 2 allegedly executed a sale deed by falsely representing petitioner no. 1 as the daughter of Uday Narayan Singh, whereas she was in fact the daughter of the complainant. On April 26, 2016, when the complainant came to know about the alleged forgery and demanded return of the forged documents from petitioner no(s). 1 and 2, the accused persons allegedly assaulted him and forcibly snatched Rs.10,000/- and his mobile phone. 

The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the ingredients for constituting offences under Sections 419, 323 and 504 of the IPC was not made out prima-facie and, therefore, cognizance as taken against the petitioners in the background of land dispute is appearing bad in the eyes of law. It was submitted that for the land dispute complainant preferred a Title Suit No. 309/2013 prior to lodging of this case, pending before the Court of learned Sub Judge-I, Gopalganj. It was also submitted that the accused/petitioners are coparcener and party of the said suit and to create unnecessary pressure or to settle personal vengeance out of oblique motive the present criminal case was lodged, which was completely un-occasioned and unwarranted and, therefore, cognizance order is fit to be quashed/set aside. The counsel submitted that cognizance should not be taken in such a mechanical manner. In support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon the reports of Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 and Rikhab Birani &  Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2025 SCC OnLine SC 823].

The paragraph no. 102 of the Bhajan Lal Case reads: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of nay offence and make out a case against the accused. 
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 

The paragraph no(s). 19 and 20 of the Rikhab Birani Case reads: “19. It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is essentially of civil nature. 13 The prevalent impression that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of creditors or lenders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure. 14 Failure to do so results in the breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of the legal process.20. In yet another case, again arising from criminal proceedings initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh this Court was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. These attempts must not be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold. Reference was made to a judgment of this Court in Thermax Limited v. K.M. Johny which held that courts should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegation may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. Further, there has to be a conscious application of mind on these aspects by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Though the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence on record and may even put questions to the complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. The summoning order has to be passed when the complaint or chargesheet discloses an offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. The summoning order should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course.”

Has FIR been lodged and CID probe ordered against SHO Kamal Nayan Pandey for breaking Manish Kumar's legs in custody, in compliance with Justice Jitendra Kumar's judgement?

On June 16, 2026, Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 5-page long judgement in the case of Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Director General of Police, Bihar and six others, wherein, he directed the Station House Officer, Murar Buxar to lodge FIR against Kamal Nayan Pandey, the then Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar and directed the Director General of Police, Bihar to take compliance report from the Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar, Ara regarding lodging of the FIR and entrust the investigation to the Crime Investigation Department because the case was lodged against a police officer. Justice Kumar concluded: “11. In case, the Petitioner is not satisfied by the investigation of the C.I.D. also, then he would be at liberty to file a further writ petition before this Court seeking appointment of C.B.I. to investigate into the matter, because this matter relates to protection of the fundamental right of the people and brutality committed by the police officer. If such conduct is not controlled and checked, the whole rule of law and constitutional protection of life and liberty of the citizen of the country would go to wind and the national police may become like one of Nazi Germany…..13. The D.G.P., Bihar is also directed to send a compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court to be put up on record within thirty days.”  It is not clear as to whether High Court’s Registrar General has received the compliance report from the  D.G.P., Bihar and whether the same has been up on record within thirty days from the date of the judgement dated June 16.  

 In this case, the petitioner had approached the Court seeking a direction for lodging of FIR against the Station House Officer (SHO), Murar, Buxar, pleading that despite the written report given by the petitioner to the Officer In-Charge, of the Police Station, and the Superintendent of Police, as well as the District Magistrate, FIR has not been lodged by the police station. The petitioner alleged that he was brutally assaulted by the SHO and both his legs were broken by him. As per the written report submitted by the Petitioner to the concerned police officer, the Petitioner had gone to the stall of his friend situated in the village Chaugaya on July 4, 2024 for online uploading of title documents in regard to his land. At 2 PM., when the petitioner was going to answer the call of nature, the SHO and other constables came on a vehicle of Murar police station came. The SHO called him and enquired about him and when he came to know that he belongs to a particular caste, he abused him and assaulted him with his danda because of which both his legs were broken. In its counter affidavit, SP , Buxar claimed that the police had not beaten the petitioner. His leg was broken he had slipped on account of rainy weather, which resulted into breaking of his legs. Justice Kumar examined the the X-Ray Report was not persuaded by this explanation of the police. He refused to believe that a poor man who does not gather courage to lodge FIR even against his co-citizen can dare to lodge false report against a police officer. 

Justice Kumar observed: “….as per the allegation, prima facie case of cognizable offence is clearly made out against Kamal Nayan Pandey, who was the then Officer in-Charge of Murar Police Station, Buxar, Ara. The Court noted that s per the allegation, prima facie cognizable offence is made out, warranting registration of FIR against the SHO. The Court observed that “for prosecution of the accused, who happened to be a police officer, does not require even sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC/ 218 B.N.S.S. because such brutal act on the part of the police officer against a poor man is not a part of his official duty. 7. It is shocking and disturbing that the cry of the victim for lodging of FIR before the concerned police officers, including the Superintendent of Police and the District

Magistrate, went unheard by the officers despite their duty to do the needful to prosecute the accused, even if the accused happened to be an officer. It is trite to say that ours is a constitutional democracy based on rule of law. Howsoever high one may be, the law is above all. There is also equality before law and equal protection of law of everybody, howsoever poor he may be.” 

He added: “8. At this stage, referring the Petitioner to the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.PC/175(3) B.N.S.S. would be further injustice to the Petitioner. Moreover, as per the allegation, there is clear violation of fundamental right of the Petitioner as granted and guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution requiring immediate lodging of FIR, failing which, the people of the Country would lose faith not only in police but even in the Writ Court.”