In Arun Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdva passed an order dated October 12, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"We find that the petitioner, having disclosed his past cases registered against him before the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 1, Aurangabad, failed to do so before the High Court and in the same vein, there is no mention of his past cases in this special leave petition. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in “Munnesh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319”, the failure to disclose the full details of the past criminal cases registered against him is fatal to the petitioner’s case. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed on that short ground.
Thursday, October 15, 2026
Supreme Court asks Niraj Kumar, Investigating Officer, Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023 to personally remain present for questioning in a murder case of January 2023 from Sheikhpura, Patna
In Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 1-page long order dated October 14, 2026, wherein, it observed: "....we are of the view that we should ask the Investigating Officer to personally remain present before this Court as we want to put few questions. 3. Post this matter on 16-10-2026 on top of the Board." Niraj Kumar is the Investigating Officer in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023.
In this very related case, in Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma has passed a 6-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In his order Justice Verma has recorded that "the Investigating Officer was cross-examined who stated that he had seen the CCTV footage but the CCTV Camera was of low quality in which three bikes were visible, people were coming but faces were not clearly visible which amply demonstrates that the petitioner was not identified based on the CCTV footage." This was in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 116 of 2023, registered on January 30, 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by Vaidnath Sah, the informant who is grandfather of the deceased. The offence was committed near Durga Mandir, Sheikhpura, Patna at 8 PM on January 30, 2023.
In Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 4-page long order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State and, thus, the second anticipatory bail application is dismissed in connection with Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Patna/Successor Court with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioners or the deponent of the case shall deposit with the Legal Aid of the Patna High Court."
A.P.P. for the State also submitted that since name of the petitioners transpired based in the confessional statement of apprehended accused and the case is of killing of the grandson of the informant, as such, the case requires investigation and interrogation of the accused persons. It was further submitted that no doubt, confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law but then for the purposes of investigation and interrogation the police can use the confessional statement for corroboration. It was next submitted that from perusal of the second anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that the same has been filed not on grounds of changed circumstances but the order rejecting the anticipatory bail application is being assailed on merits. It is, thus, submitted that if petitioners were aggrieved by the order rejecting their anticipatory bail application, in that event, they could have moved before the Supreme Court. It was also submitted that the case is of the year 2023 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner and while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner by order dated 17.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 83768 of 2025, the fact that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued was also taken into consideration.
The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail application of the petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners had earlier moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 83768 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated February 17, 2026. It was next submitted that Anand Kumar and Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, who are named in the FIR, have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court but then the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value, stands rejected, though they are not named in the FIR on which Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P. submitted that Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, who is named accused in the FIR, was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail for the reason recorded in the order dated March 18, 2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 14308 of 2026. It was also submitted that even Anand Kumar, who is named in the FIR, was also granted the privilege of anticipatory bail for reasons recorded in the order dated July 11, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 22117 of 2023. It was also submitted that as far as petitioners are concerned, though they are not named in the FIR but then their names transpired in the case based on the confessional statement of apprehended accused, who were arrested, during the course of investigation by the police, finding their involvement in the occurrence of killing of the grandson of the informant. It was also submitted that with respect to Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, the order dated March 18, 2026 recorded that he is a resident of Bihta whereas in the FIR, the accused, namely, Abhijeet Kumar was a resident of Shivpuri and the police without investigating the said aspect in a mechanical manner was after him and the said facts stand recorded in detail in the order dated 18.03.2026. It was also submitted that Anand Kumar, who was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, was granted the said privilege for the reason that the apprehended accused, whose involvement was found in the occurrence, had not named him, it was also submitted that the informant of the case is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, as such, Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar and Anand Kumar came to be implicated in the FIR based on suspicion.
Prior to this in Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 2-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he refused anticipatory bail. The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 116 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The senior counsel for the petitioners had submitted that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleged that accused persons along with some unknown accused shot his grandson near a Chowmein shop leading to his death. He also submitted that Anand Kumar Singh @ Anand had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 22117 of 2023 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated July 11, 2023 but then fairly submitted that the case of the petitioners was not similar to the case of Anand as name of the petitioners transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody but then name of Anand was not disclosed in the confessional statement of apprehended accused. It was also fairly submitted that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued. The A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
In a related case in Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 6-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he granted anticipatory bail.
Justice Verma has recorded that the submission of the petitioner's counsel that petitioner was a person with clean antecedent and was a young boy aged about 23 years. But the informant has alleged that petitioner along with five named accused persons and some unknown accused shot his grandson near the Chowmin Shop leading to his death. The senior counsel submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would be manifest that informant is grandfather of the deceased and he alleged that his grandson was shot dead by the accused persons but he is not an eyewitness to the occurence. The FIR itself manifests that the public disclosed the name of the assailants who committed the occurrence of murder. Abhijeet Kumar, the resident of Shivpuri, is an accused in the FIR by name but then the parentage of Abhijeet Kumar is not dislcosed in the FIR. It was submitted that the name of the petitioner is Abhijeet Raj @Abhijeet Kumar and not Abhijeet Kumar who is son of Late Ajay Kumar Singh and is resident of Surya Mandir Road Srirampur, Sirirampur, Bihta, Police Station Bihta, Patna. It was also submitted that petitioner was not even aware that an FIR was instituted in which the police without investigating the case in its correct perspective is looking for the petitioner. It was also submitted that during the course of investigation Aman, Shivji and Avinash were arrested and from perusal of their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it would be manifest that they have named one Abhijeet Kumar but have not dislcosed the parentage and added that he was a resident of Shivpuri. It was submitted that even the apprehended accused have not dislcosed that Abhijeet Kumar who was involved in the occurrence is a resident of Bihta. It was submitted that during the course of investigation, no material transpired even to remotely connect the petitioner with the offence on the ground that he is a resident of Shivpuri in the district of Patna. It was also submitted that during the course of investigation, it has come that bystanders from the CCTV footage had identified the assailants of the deceased and the petitioner was also identified. It was further submitted that if what has come during the course of investigation that petitioner was identified based on CCTV footage by bystanders in that event definitely the case is not for anticipatory bail but then it was submitted that Shivji was arrested and was convicted by the trial court by judgment dated September 4, 2025 in a case of 2023. It was next submitted that in the trial, the Investigating Officer was cross-examined who stated that he had seen the CCTV footage but the CCTV Camera was of low quality in which three bikes were visible, people were coming but faces were not clearly visible which amply demonstrates that the petitioner was not identified based on the CCTV footage. It was also submitted that the informant of the case was also cross-examined in the trial of Shivji and dislcosed that he had identified the assailant of his grandson but was not knowing his name but in the trial he identified Shivji as the assailant and also stated that he had not seen any other accused persons. It is also submitted that petitioner is a student and is pursuing his B.Tech. (Computer Science) from Sharda University, Greater Noida.
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
Supreme Court takes note of Settlement Agreement, permits mutual divorce to Nitin and Seema, sets aside order by Justice Bibek Chaudhury in a case from Rahimpur, Bidupur, Vaishali
In Nitin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Dividion Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated October 1, 2026, wherein, it granted leave and concluded:"3. A joint application under Article 142 has been filed by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties as I.A. No.291457/2026 bringing to the notice of this Court Settlement Agreement dated 22.07.2026, duly signed by the parties and attested by the learned counsel for both the sides, and authenticated by the learned Mediator to the effect that the matter has been resolved between the parties. 4. We have taken note of the Settlement Agreement. The said agreement is not disputed by both the sides. Both the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement shall form part and parcel of this order. The Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 75 Lakhs executed by the appellant and deposited with this Registry shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent No.2.....6. Accordingly, by invoking our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, there shall be a mutual divorce between the parties, as agreed upon. A decree of divorce shall be drawn up accordingly. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court stands set aside. Accordingly, IA No.291457/2026; i.e. Joint Application on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.2; and the appeal stands allowed and IA No.303512/2026, seeking necessary directions with regards to waiver of stamp duty on the relinquishment deed stands dismissed." The Court set aside the 5-page long order dated February 13, 2025 by Justice Bibek Chaudhury of Patna High Court
The Court closed/quashed the following 12 cases:
i. Title Suit No. 379/2008, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. Seema" pending before Sub-judge, XII, Vaishali.
ii. Civil Miscellaneous No. 744/2025, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. Smt Poonam Kumari and Others", pending
before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
iii. Civil Miscellaneous No. 1495/2025, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. Manoj Kumar and others", pending before
the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
iv. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57501/2025, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and others", pending before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
v. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2720/2025, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and others" pending
before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
vi. Title Suit No. 827/2022, titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar” pending before the Sub-judge, VII, Vaishali.
vii. Complaint Case No. 1335(C), titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar and others" pending before the JM 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali.
viii. Miscellaneous No. 61/2021, titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar before the Principal Judge, Hajipur, Vaishali.
ix. FIR lodged as FIR of Bidupur P.S. Case No. 329/2006, pending before the SDJM, Hajipur Vaishali.
x. Miscellaneous No.3/2012, titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar" pending before the Principal Judge, Patna.
xi. Civil Miscellaneous No. 399/2024, titled "Smt. Seema Kumari @ Seema Devi vs. Sri. Nitin Kumar", pending before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
xii. Certificate Case No. 2/23/24, titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar", pending before the Certificate Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali."
Earlier, in Nitin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), by his order dated February 13, 2025, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri had dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision No. 737 of 2024, after a lapse of about 7 years 9 months and 10 days. Consequently, the criminal revision was also dismissed. Justice Chaudhury had concluded: "9. It is not in dispute that there are other criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Vaishali and he had taken steps one after another before the Court to stop those criminal proceedings. Thus, he had knowledge about pendency of the criminal proceeding against him in the Court of Hajipur at Vaishali and it is hard to believe that he did not have any knowledge about the maintenance case. 10. In view of such circumstances, this inordinate delay of 7 years 9 months and 10 days cannot be condoned and accordingly the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected on contest. 11. Consequent upon the rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the criminal revision is also dismissed. 12. With the dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 737 of 2024, the Criminal Revision No. 782 of 2024, which has been filed against the execution of the maintenance order be also dismissed. 13. The parties are at liberty to take steps in the Trial Court."
Before the High Court, it was contended by the petitioner that Seema, the opposite party had filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hajipur at Vaishali which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 31 of 2025. In themaintenance case, the petitioner/husband did not receive any notice and withoutservice of notice, the maintenance case was fixed for ex parte hearing. Subsequently, the maintenance case was disposed of ex parte vide order dated November 17, 2016. In the maintenance proceeding, the opposite party/wife purposefully gave a wrong address of the petitioner/husband. Though it was within her knowledge that the petitioner had been residing in Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner of the maintenance case stated the address of her husband within the jurisdiction of the district of Vaishali. Therefore, notices sent in the residential as well as the business address of the petitioner were returned unserved. Subsequently on the prayer of the opposite party, notices were attempted to be served through paper publication in a Hindi Daily circulated within Vaishali area. Thus, he had no knowledge about pendency of the maintenance case only when the order of attachment of property of the petitioner was passed and it came to be attached, he came to know about the existence of such case. Then he obtained certified copy of the order and file criminal revision challenging the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hajipur at Vaishali under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court’s Act. Therefore, the petitioner had no intentional laches and delay in filing the instant revision and therefore the delay may be condoned. The advocate on behalf of the opposite party/wife had referred to an order, dated July 6, 2015, passed by the Trial Court. The said order stated that notice of the maintenance proceeding was served through paper publication.. It was strongly urged by the advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner had no opportunity to have the knowledge about the maintenance case because he used to reside in Lucknow. The advocate on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, had submitted that petitioner ran a school under the name and style of Oasis International School at Vaishali. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he had no information about existence of any such school run by the petitioner.
Justice Chaudury had observed that though the petitioner contended that he resides in Lucknow, in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner himself states his address of Vaishali. Had the petitioner been staying in Lucknow, he could have stated his Lucknow address in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He observed: "8. The statement of the petitioner runs in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with regard to his address reminds this Court likes to quote an old proverb that a wrong doer always leaves behind a mark of his wrong through which his role can be ascertained." Supreme Court set aside the order by Justice Chaudury after having ascertained the core of case of dispute between husband and wife.
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Partha Sarthy to hear case of indpendence of prosecutor for admission, will Justice Dr. Anshuman's verdict be declared per incuriam?
The L.P.A was field on June 9, 2026 and registered on June 10, 2026. The four other respondents are: 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, 3. The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, 4. The Director, Prosecution, Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, Bihar and 5. The District Prosecution Officer, In-charge, Rohtas, Sasaram. It arose from Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1855 of 2025. Notably, Clause 3 of Prosecution Manual, 2003 provides for constitution of Bihar Prosecution Service. Working in any department on deputation puts the one who has been deputed under the administrative and disciplinary control of the department. A joint reading the decision by Justice Dr. Anshuman and the Supreme Court's decision in S.B. Sahane vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1628 reveals that the former is per incuriam as it did not refer to the latter, which has settled the law.
In M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. 2024 INSC 840, the 5-Judge Constitution of Bench of the Supreme Court has held, “… when dealing with the ignorance of a statutory provision, we may bear in mind the following principles. These may not however be exhaustive:
(i) A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked provisions were considered. It must be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission.
(ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta.
(iii) If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration.
(iv) It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply.”
In Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2026 INSC 667, Supreme Court has reiterated that a judgment is per incuriam: (a) when its ratio is not reconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a Bench of equal or higher strength; or (b) when a particular provision, a statute, a rule or a regulation has not been brought to the attention of the Court.
Now it is for the Division bench of Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy to ascertain how through a questionable subordinate legislation an attempt has been made to orient the prosecutors towards securing more convictions through executive instructions compromised the independence of prosecutors. The undue political influence is manifest in the manner in which criminal cases are withdrawn from prosecution. Withdrawal from prosecution allows for weaker cases to fall out of the system, however in practice negligible numbers of cases are withdrawn in Bihar. The power is mostly usurped by state government to manipulate the criminal justice system and use it as a site for electoral politics. This practice of the state government combined with the relatively limited discretion prosecutors in Bihar enjoy at the investigation stage and the early stage of a criminal trial makes them vulnerable to executive interference. While independence from the investigating agencies has been secured, independence from the state executive is equally important for optimal functioning of the office of public prosecution. The institutional arrangement under which public prosecutors operate have a significant influence on the discharge of their responsibilities inside the courtroom.
Significantly, unlike Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court, the Patna High Court, Allahabad High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court have upheld the need to ensure prosecutorial autonomy in the past. For prosecutorial autonomy and neutrality to translate into reality, questionable provisions under subordinate legislations like the Bihar Prosecution Manual 2003 and notifications under it which undermine prosecutorial autonomy ought to be read down to ensure compliance with Supreme Court's directions in S.B. Shahanae vs.State of Maharashtra. AIR19951628:1995 SCC (Cri)787, wherein, it has held that the appointment of officers or prosecutors of the Police Department as Assistant Public Prosecutors must be free them from the administrative and disciplinary control of the Police Department and its officers. The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which impaired prosecutorial neutrality.
In Jai Pal Singh Naresh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 1976 CRILJ 3, the Allahabad High Court has held:“...if administrative and disciplinary control over the public prosecutors was entrusted to the officers of the Police Department, the very purpose for which Section 25 was enacted would be frustrated...The State government appoints Assistant Public Prosecutors and it can alone dismiss or remove them but that does not mean that the police officers to whom immediate disciplinary control has been entrusted will cease to have any right to exercise powers over the Assistant Public Prosecutors...Once they are liable to answer to the Superintendent of police and Inspector General of Police, in substance they are subordinate officers to them and they would be liable to carry out their orders and directions. The State Government while exercising its power of dismissal or removal is bound to be affected by the reports and opinion of those Police officers who have administrative and disciplinary control over the public prosecutors, therefore the contention that since the ultimate control vests with the State Government the immediate control of Police officers would not affect the independence of the prosecuting agency is fallacious.”
In Krishan Singh Kundu vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 1989 CRILJ1 309, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held: "That the action of the respondent State of Haryana, in appointing a police officer as Director of Prosecution, that is, in charge of the Prosecution Agency of the State, is wholly illegal and violative of the very letter and spirit of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, therefore, by issuing a writ of certiorari, quash the appointment of the Director of Prosecution, Haryana, who happens to be an officer of the Police Department, and by issuing further a writ of Prohibition, we forthwith restrain the State of Haryana from permitting any police officer to occupy the office of the Director of Prosecution."
Earlier, the petitioner had filed the writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of transfer vide Notification No. 145 dated January 16, 2025 at Serial No. 2 from the post of Sub Divisional Prosecution Officer, posted in the District Prosecution Office, Rohtas, Sasaram to the office of Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar as law Officer and further prayer for quashing the relieving order No.8/2025 contained in Memo No. 144 dated April 4, 2025. The counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Prosecution Officer vide Notification No. 1011 dated September 25, 2017 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Prosecution Officer vide Notification No. 2513 dated October 31, 2023, both issued by the Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. It was also submitted that the petitioner, vide Letter No. 20 dated January 17, 2025, made a representation before the Director of Prosecution requesting that he be posted in any District Prosecution Office by rectifying or omitting his name at Serial No. 2 of the transfer notification. A similar representation was also submitted before respondent no. 2, namely, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, but no relief was granted. The counsel also submitted that the High Court, vide order dated November 14, 1995 passed in CWJC No. 5573 of 1995, had directed the State authorities to create a separate prosecution cadre independent of the police department in terms of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to ensure that no Assistant Public Prosecutor remains subordinate to police officers. The order was challenged by the State of Bihar in LPA No. 294 of 1996, which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of vide order dated November 4, 1996. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.
Prior to this in The Bihar Prosecution Officer's Association through its General Secretary & Ors. vs. .The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2013), Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh of Patna High Court has delivered a 35-page long judgement dated January 24, 2013, wherein, he observed:"It is relevant to state that the Law Commission of India suggested that the post of Public Prosecutor must always be filled by the member of the Bar from panel prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. The Commission further suggested that 50% of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in a district must always be filled by the bar from the panel prepared by the District Magistrate under section 24(4) in consultation with the Sessions Judge and remaining 50% of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in a district should be filled from amongst Public Prosecutor who are in regular cadre of Prosecuting officer. The Commission suggested that 50% post of Additional Public Prosecutor to be filled by the Assistant Public Prosecutor should be from a penal prepared by the State Level Committee consisting of (a) a retired High Court Judge/sitting High Court Judge, nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court, (b) the Law Secretary in the State Government, (c) an officer of the rank of Secretary of that State and (d) Director of Prosecution."
Justice Singh recorded: "The Law Department, respondent no.5, has states in paragraph 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit that after due consideration of 197th report of the Law Commission of India, the Government of Bihar has accorded its assent to the suggestion of the Law Commission and views and comments of Government of Bihar has been communicated to the Ministry of Home, Government of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.7.2011. The relevant extract of 197th report of the Law Commission of India on Public Prosecutor‟s appointment is quoted hereinbelow:
“……….We have, therefore, suggested that the post of Public Prosecutor must always be filled by a member of the Bar from a panel prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge, that 50% of the posts of Addl. Public Prosecutor in a District must also be filled by the Bar from the panel prepared by the District Magistrate under sec. 24(4) in consultation with the Sessions Judge and remaining 50% of the posts of Addl. Public Prosecutor in a District must be filled from among Asst. Public Prosecutors who are in the Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers. We have also recommended an express provision to be inserted in sec. 24(4) that the Sessions Judge must recommend names of lawyers who have personally conducted substantial number of Sessions cases and who bear good character. If such a Central amendment is brought, in case the State Amendments omit the provision of consultation with the Sessions Judge and the selection experience and good character, such a procedure will offend Art.14. Likewise, in regard to sec. 24(6), 50% of posts of Addl. Public Prosecutor, must be filled by Asst. Public Prosecutors from a panel prepared by a State Level Committee consisting of (a) a retired High Court Judge/sitting High Court Judge, nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court, (b) the Law Secretary in the State Government, (c) an officer of the rank of Secretary of that State and (d) the Director of Prosecution. That Committee must assess the merit, experience, previous record of performance of the Asst. Public Prosecutors and it must be ensured that the persons selected bear good character. We have also stated that within six months of the proposed amendment to the Code, State Governments must constitute a Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers consisting of 50% of Posts of Addl. Public Prosecutors in a District and all the Asst. Public Prosecutors in the State. The above recommendations answer all the questions posed by the PMO in its letter to the Home Ministry.” It is expected that the State of Bihar would honour its own commitment and would act in terms of the recommendation of the Law Commission to which it has accorded its consent."
Justice Singh concluded:" In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, no mandamus can be issued directing implementation of section 24(6) Cr.P.C. in appointment of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor from Prosecuting Officers, as it would be in teeth of State Amendment substituted vide Act 16/84 substituting the word “may” in place of “shall” in section 24(6) Cr.P.C. of Explanation inserted by Act 25/2005 to the proviso to section 24(6) would not be of much help even assuming their exists even a regular cadre of Prosecuting officers, as long as the State amendment 16/84 to section 24(6) is not altered or declared invalid. Even the Prosecution Manual, 2003 on which the petitioners have placed reliance, also allows discretion under Clause 30¼d½ to the government in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor from amongst the Prosecution Officers. In the facts of the case, I issue following directions:
(i) As the cadre of Prosecuting Officers is working at the moment at less than half of its strength, I direct the Government to complete the process of selection for which requisition of 285 Assistant Public Prosecutor was made to B.P.S.C. between the years 2006 to 2010 expeditiously preferably within six months. All concerned would act accordingly to ensure compliance in public interest so that trial in Courts may not suffer.
(ii) The Government would take steps for appointment of 50% of Additional Public Prosecutor from cadre of Prosecution Officers as per its own affidavit and consent accorded to recommendation of Law Commission.
(iii) The Government in terms of earlier assurance as noted in foregoing paragraphs may in its discretion consider at least appointing 10% of Public Prosecutor under clause 30¼d½ as well as substituted section 24(6) amended under Act 16/84 from amongst Prosecution Officers.
(iv) The Government of Bihar would act in terms of section 25(A) inserted vide Act 25/2005 and take steps for appointment of a regular Director of Prosecution as well as Deputy Director of Prosecution to strengthen the functioning of Prosecution agency in absence of which the provision would remain only a paper worth."
The Bihar Prosecution Officer's Association's case was adjudicated along with Shambhu Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government of Bihar & Ors. and Surya Nandan Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government of Bihar & Ors. (20213). Like Justice Dr. Anshuman and Justice Singh too missed the opportunity to draw on the Supreme Court's decision in S.B. Sahane vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1628, which conclusively settled the law. It held that the administrative and disciplinary control of police over the prosecutors is against the letter and spirit of Section 25 of the CrPC. The prosecutors must be fully free from the administrative and disciplinary control of the police department and its officers.
Now it is for the Division Bench of Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy to recognize the illegitimacy of encroachment by the state government's subordinate legisaltion to remove the checks on executive power in the matter of appointments and through the set of rules and instructions made by the state government that are intrinsically tied to the functioning of prosecutors.
Also read: Will Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 prevail over High Court's judgments of 1992 and 1996?
Sunday, October 11, 2026
Supreme Court orders "Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally, free movement of people in the city shall be ensured, Internet facilities should function unhindered, There shall be no illegal detention, Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties"
In Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs. Govind Mohan (2026), upon hearing a Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary, a case arising out of 4-page long Supreme Court’s impugned judgment and order dated October 9, 2026 in M.A. Baby vs. Union of India, Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner of Police & Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed a 11-page long order on SUNDAY October 11, 2026, wherein, it concluded: 16. Taking note of such submissions, we direct as follows:
(a) Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2).
(b) Similarly, free movement of people in the city shall be ensured subject to law and order situation and/or traffic regulations. Imposition of barricades on roads shall be reviewed forthwith to ensure free movement subject to law and order and traffic requirements.
(c) Internet facilities should function unhindered.
(d) There shall be no illegal detention, particularly in cases of peaceful unarmed assemblage of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation.
(e) We have been informed that a notice board stating Section 163 BNSS has been invoked in and around the precincts of the Supreme Court has been put up in the Court premises. We direct the authorities concerned to forthwith take down the said board, if not already done, so that there is no apprehension with regard to ingress and egress to the Supreme Court or any other court of law.
(f) Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever. 17. List on 13.10.2026 for further consideration along with Diary No. 63952/2026, Diary No. 63943/2026, Diary No. 63944/2026 and application(s) for intervention/impleadment.
The order reads: “1. Application for permission to file contempt petition is allowed. 2. In view of the urgent applications alleging violation of our earlier order dated 09.10.2026 and also alleging illegal detention of large number of individuals at Delhi on 10.10.2026, this Court has assembled for an urgent hearing. 3. During hearing, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. N. Hariharan, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Dr. Monika Gusain, Mr. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel and Mr. Devvrat, learned AOR along with other learned senior counsel/counsel submitted that there were flagrant violations of directions given in our order dated 09.10.2026; metro railway was not functioning; New Delhi railway station and Nizamuddin railway station remained closed; no traffic advisories were issued and large number of persons were subjected to undue harassment and illegal detention even beyond the area which was covered by the prohibitory order passed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). It was also contended that there was a complete shutdown of the internet and that the city bore a curfew like look with suspension of transport and free movement of people and goods.”
The order further reads: “4. In addition to such submissions, oral mentionings were made in respect of Diary No. 63952/2026, Diary No. 63943/2026 and Diary No. 63944/2026 wherein similar prayers had been made. 5. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy in support of the listed matters being Diary No.63801/2026 (in Diary No.63560/2026) and Diary No.63858/2026 took us through the pleadings, wherein it has been averred that the metro railway stations namely GTB Nagar Metro Station and Viswavidyalaya Metro Station among other metro stations were completely shut out to public and there has been a deliberate and wilful violation of our order as aforesaid. 6. Addressing us on the Habeas Corpus petition (Diary No.63858/2026), Dr. Guruswamy forcibly contended that the prayer re: illegal detention is not merely restricted to the personalities referred to therein but is a plea against widespread illegal detention of about 7,000 individuals in the city. 7. In rebuttal, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India & Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India contend that the petitions which were orally mentioned have not been served on the Union and accordingly they are unable to assist the Court on the issues pleaded therein.”
The order states: “8. With regard to the allegations made in the Diary No. 63801/2026, Mr. Tushar Mehta orally denies and disputes the allegations of violation of order dated 09.10.2026 and contends that the Delhi Metro was functioning normally, however, 45 out of 303 stations had been closed to maintain law and order. In response to the Habeas Corpus petition, he denied any one had been illegally detained and otherwise the petition is infructuous as the detenues referred to have since been released. 9. With regard to the submission that the essential services still remain suspended, he assured this Court that all metro stations are open since 10 p.m. yesterday, trains are functioning normally and internet connection has been restored. With regard to a serious insinuation that Section 163 of the BNSS had been clamped in and around the Supreme Court premises, Mr. Mehta sought time to seek instructions. 10. Other counsel have made prayers for intervention in these proceedings and contend that the fundamental freedoms must be exercised in a reasonable manner and must be subjected to reasonable restrictions.”
The Court recorded: “11. Having heard the learned senior counsel as well as the learned Solicitor General of India and learned Additional Solicitor General of India, we note that our order dated 09.10.2026, inter alia, held as follows: “7. It appears that the notifications are overreaching, as they impose a complete ban upon essential public transportation. Upon our indication that a distinction exists between total ‘prohibition’ and the ‘regulation’ of Metro and other train movements, learned Solicitor General of India has fairly agreed to impress upon the authorities to reassess such prohibitions. Consequently, they will permit the operation of Metro trains and other rail services in such a regulated manner, that no inconvenience is caused to the residents and general public of Delhi, while adhering to the principles of proportionality. 8. Regarding that assurance, we clarify that although there shall be no outright prohibition on the movement of Metro trains, a prudent decision may be made to permit the operation of Metro trains and other rail services in a suitable and regulated manner. Such a decision should be widely publicised to prevent further inconvenience. 9. In this vein, a traffic advisory shall also be published in respect of smooth movement of vehicles in newspapers and on online platforms to ensure that no hardship or inconvenience is caused to the public in the course of traveling within the city. The order will be issued today to ensure that the decision receives publicity and that there is ample clarity on the prevailing circumstances. 10. During the course of hearing, it was suggested, and learned senior counsel and counsel for the parties were ad idem, that it is high time basic amenities were provided to those engaged in peaceful and lawful protest. To that end, suitable alternative sites capable of housing such infrastructure need to be identified and designated. Let the Competent Authority consider this suggestion and take an appropriate decision thereon. 11. Let a compliance report be filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, the requisite Railway authorities and Delhi Police (Traffic) in this regard within four days. 12. Ordered accordingly. 12. In summary, by the said order, firstly, the authorities concerned had been directed to revisit the earlier notification issued by Delhi Metro regarding closure of 57 metro stations keeping in mind the fact that the operation of metro train and other rail services may be regulated in appropriate situations but not prohibited outrightly. Secondly, the order had also directed the authorities to give wide publicity to the reconsidered decision to avoid further inconvenience to the public. Thirdly, the order had directed fresh traffic advisories in newspapers and online platforms in respect of free vehicle movement. The order has also called upon the authorities to submit a compliance report within four days i.e., 13.10.2026.”
Supreme Court observed: “13. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments in the Contempt Petition, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, we issue notice upon the alleged contemnors. They are directed to file counter affidavit to the said petition including a compliance report in terms of our order as aforesaid by 13.10.2026. Their personal presence is dispensed with in the meanwhile. Similarly, notice is issued in Habeas Corpus Petition (Diary No.63858/2026). 14. The other unlisted mentioned petitions shall be served upon the office of the Solicitor General during the course of the day and shall be tagged with the present matters. Intervention/impleadment application(s) shall also be tagged with these matters. 15. Learned counsel have strongly urged for ad-interim reliefs with regard to smooth operation of metro rail, traffic, internet services and free movement of people, especially lawyers, journalists and other professionals. Mr. Mehta has, on instructions, submitted that internet facilities have since been restored and all metro railway stations are fully functional. He also assures the Court that lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be impeded in discharge of their professional duties.”