All India Trinamool Congress, the story so far

All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) is an Indian political party founded by Mamata Banerjee in 1998. In 2011, AITMC, in alliance with Indian National Congress and SUCI, it ended the 34-year Left Front Rule in West Bengal, coming to power in the state by winning 227 seats. AITMC secured 187 seats alone, enabling it to run the state without an alliance. 

Mamata Banerjee was sworn in as the first woman Chief Minister of the State. She announced the return of 400 acres of land to Singur farmers as one of the first decisions. In 2014 Lok Sabha polls,  AITMC won 34 out of 42 seats in Bengal. In, 2016, AITMC won the West Bengal Assembly elections, securing an overwhelming majority of 211 out of 293 seats. It is recognised as a national party by the Election Commission of India. In the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, TMC secures only 22 seats. 

In 2021, it wins the Vidhan Sabha elections for the third time, securing a landslide two-thirds majority winning 215 seats. Party leaders like Suvendu Adhikari and Mukul Roy had defected to BJP just before the assembly elections.

It becomes a key constituent of Congress-led INDIA bloc against the NDA in the run-up to the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha polls. 

It could not gain majority in 2026 election. AITC party, the name and symbol of  is frozen by Election Commission of India (ECI), after that Mamata All India Trinamool Congress gets recognized by ECI ahead of by-polls in West Bengal. 

Supreme Court aside part of judgement by Patna High Court in a matrimonial case against mother-in-law from Bada Telpa Chauk, Saran

In Prabha Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K.K Singh passed a 5-page long order dated September 8, 2026, wherein, it granted leave and concluded:"10. We are, therefore, satisfied that the allegations and the material collected during the investigation do not disclose the necessary ingredients of Sections 341, 323, 498A and 504, read with Section 34 IPC, against the appellant. Continuation of the prosecution against her would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned final order dated 10.11.2025 is set aside to the extent that it declines quashing the criminal proceedings as against the appellant herein. Therefore, all subsequent criminal proceedings/processes arising out of FIR no. 20 of 2024 dated 27.03.2024 registered at Mahila Police Station, Saran are quashed only insofar as they concern the appellant, Prabha Devi. This order shall not affect the proceedings against the husband, which shall be considered on their own merits. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."  The Respondents no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are:Puja Kumari Gupta,  Satya Dev Prasad, Shailesh Prasad, Shailesh Kumar and Anita Devi respectively. 

The appellant before the Supreme Court was the mother-in-law of respondent no. 2, the complainant. The appellant questioned the final order dated November 10, 2025 passed by Justice Purnendu Singh of the Patna High Court, to the extent that the High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings against her.
The proceedings arise from FIR No. 20 of 2024, dated March 27, 2024, registered at Mahila Police Station, Saran, initially for offences under Sections 354, 379, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, Charge-sheet No. 36 of 2024, dated July 22, 2024, was filed under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504 and 34 IPC. Cognizance was taken on September 2, 2024 in T.R. No. 3763 of 2024.

The marriage between respondent No.2 and the appellant’s son was solemnised on November 22, 2015, whereafter the spouses ordinarily resided at Pune. It is alleged that during the COVID-19 period in 2020, they shifted to the family residence at Bada Telpa Chowk, Saran district, where respondent No.2 was subjected to harassment by the accused persons. The material incident concerning the appellant is alleged to have occurred on February 15, 2023, when respondent no.2 returned with her father to the matrimonial residence. It is alleged that the appellant and the sister-in-law abused her and that the appellant admitted having taken jewellery found missing from an almirah. The acts of catching respondent no. 2 by her hands and hair, assaulting her and tearing her clothes are specifically attributed to the father-in-law and brother-in-law, followed by the general assertion that all the accused beat her. The statements of the complainant's parents principally concern the matrimonial discord between the spouses and do not attribute to the appellant any specific demand for property or distinct act causing hurt. 

Supreme Court has recorded in its order: "Six persons from the neighbourhood stated that respondent no. 2 ordinarily lived in Pune and that they had neither seen nor heard of any harassment by the in-laws. The record discloses no recovery of jewellery and no injury report. Nevertheless, a common charge sheet was filed against the husband and four in-laws. 5. In the quashing petition filed by the appellant and the other in-laws, the High Court held that the allegations against the father-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law were general and omnibus, and it quashed the proceedings against them. However, the High Court neither quashed the proceedings against the appellant nor recorded how the ingredients of the charged offences were made out against her. Instead, the High Court directed the appellant and her son to participate in mediation, granted interim protection for four months and made its continuance depend upon which party was responsible for failure of mediation.

Supreme Court's order reads: "7. The Court must examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, along with the material collected during the investigation, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the particular accused. The principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 permit interference where the allegations do not constitute an offence and caution against compelling relatives of the husband to face trial on general and omnibus allegations. Tested on the aforesaid standard, the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not disclosed against the appellant. No unlawful demand is attributed to her. The collective allegations of taunting, opposition to the marriage and harassment do not state the particular conduct of the appellant or disclose wilful conduct of the degree contemplated by the provision. The later assertion that she failed to restrain her son cannot constitute cruelty or common intention without a corresponding factual foundation in the FIR or the material collected during investigation. 8. To attract Section 341 IPC, no act of wrongful restraint is attributed to the appellant. As regards Section 323 IPC, the detailed acts of physical assault are attributed to the father-in-law and brother-in-law, against whom the criminal proceedings have been quashed by the High Court in the impunged order." 

The Supreme Court observed: "The residual allegation against all the accused is undifferentiated, does not identify any particular act of the appellant and is not particularised by the material collected during investigation. However, the High Court, while quashing the proceedings against the other in-laws, did not distinguish the case of the appellant or record any reason for denying the relief of quashing qua the appellant. For Section 504 IPC, neither the words used nor the facts showing an intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace are stated. Section 34 IPC cannot supply the essential facts of the principal offences. 9. The allegation concerning the jewellery is undoubtedly more specific. However, after investigation, no charge under Section 379 IPC or any offence concerning entrustment or dishonest retention of the jewellery was filed, and no recovery was effected. In the absence of the necessary connecting facts, that allegation cannot, by itself, be transposed into the distinct offences appearing in the
charge-sheet."

Earlier, in Prabha Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justice Singh had delivered a 9-page long judgement dated November 10, 2025, wherein, it recorded that no one appeared on behalf of Puja Kumari, the O.P. No.2. The judgement concluded:"16. In the present case, so far as, the petitioner no.1 (mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2) is concerned, she along with her son, has agreed to settle the dispute outside the Court and she has willingly desired to appear along with her son before the learned District Court on 17.12.2025 at 10:30 AM." 

Justice Singh added: "17. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center. 18. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute between the parties amicably and thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a period of four months, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner no.1 in connection with the aforesaid case. 19. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably, then the proceeding is required to be dropped in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove. 20. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner no.1 to appear on 17.12.2025 along with her son before the learned District Court or any date fixed by the learned
Mediator, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force. 21. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the petitioner no.1 and reconciliation fails, then in that case, the learned District Court shall proceed with the trial. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the opposite party no.2 to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection granted to the petitioner no.1 shall continue and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands disposed of."

Justice Singh had observed: "8. The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife is well settled at the same time, the Apex Court has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial. 9. It is commonly seen in the society that the entire family members, as well as, relatives are made accused along with the husband to face criminal prosecution. The Apex Court has demarcated the manner in which the complaints are entertained by the learned District Court. 10. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners no. 2 to 4, who are father-in-law, brother-in-law and Gotani (wife of brother-in-law) and allegation against them is general and omnibus. 11. It has been held by the Apex Court that the matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence against society." 

Justice Singh drew on paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675. It reads: “ 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693: 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts."

Justice Singh referred Supreme Court's decision in Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
reported in 2025 INSC 963, wherein, it has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

Justice Singh had observed:"13. I find that no case under Section 498A and other allied sections of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act is made out against petitioner nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, the entire proceedings and order taking cognizance dated 02.09.2024 (Arising out of Saran Mahila P.S. Case No.20 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 354, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and T.R. No.3763 of 2024) passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside and quashed to the extent it relates to petitioners no. 2 to 4." 

Justice Singh relied on Supreme Court's decision in Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024), in paragraph nos. 25 and 31 dealing with the cases related to dowry has held that opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile. It reads: “25. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has made it clear that family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses. It was further held that where the allegations are bereft of specific particulars, and particularly where the relatives sought to be prosecuted are residing separately or have had no connection with the matrimonial home, allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court noted that criminal law is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment, and that judicial scrutiny must be exercised to guard against such misuse....31. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein this Court observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific reference was made to offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable. The High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

Justice Singh had also referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Naushey Ali & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, wherein, considering the entirety of matters, particularly dealing with the misuse of Section 498 of IPC, referring to its earlier judgment, finally concluded that offences arising out of matrimonial dispute particularly relating to dowry etc. or a family dispute where wrong is committed to the victim by the offenders and his family, can be settled amicably.

Supreme Court has set aside Justice Singh's order to the extent it declines quashing the criminal proceedings as against Prabha Devi. Therefore, all subsequent criminal proceedings/processes arising out of FIR no. 20 of 2024 dated March 27, 2024 registered at Mahila Police Station, Saran have been quashed only insofar as they concern Prabha Devi, the appellant. 

Supreme Court sets aside Patna High Court's order, restores original Order of Principal District and Sessions Court, Purnea

In Basant Rai & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 3-page long order dated September 16, 2026, wherein, it allowed the exemption applications, granted leave and concluded:"6. The matter is essentially a civil dispute and proceedings with respect to the same are pending. It is also noted that the past criminal antecedents of the appellants pertain to minor offences having no bearing on the instant dispute at hand. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the common impugned Orders of the High Court are set aside and the original Order of the Sessions Court is restored. 8. The appeals stand disposed of. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

The appellants had approached the Supreme Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.43/24 registered on February 15, 2024 against the appellants in connection with offences u/S 406, 420, 467, 468
& 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 and have alleged to have forged certain signatures to effectuate a sale deed. The appellants were granted anticipatory bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Purnea vide order dated October 4, 2024, which was subsequently cancelled by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court vide Order dated May 5, 2026 citing suppression of past criminal antecedents of the appellants.

The Court recorded that the counsel for the appellants had submitted that the matter pertains to a civil dispute and that the Suit with respect to the same had been dismissed. The counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the civil matter was dismissed in default and restoration with respect to the same is pending.

Earlier, in Bimal Kumar @ Bimal Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Kumar of the Court had passed a 4-page long order dated May 5, 2026, wherein, "5. From the impugned order, it appears that it was argued by learned counsels for the opposite parties in the Court below before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Purnea that all the opposite parties have clean antecedent. 6. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 4 and 5 has filed the counter affidavit and he has accepted the fact that the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 have criminal antecedent and a false statement was made before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Purnea at the time of argument of anticipatory bail. 7. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the bail granted to the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 has been obtained by committing fraud upon the Court i.e., by suppression of criminal antecedent and therefore anticipatory bail granted to them is cancelled. They are directed to surrender and pray for regular bail within two weeks from today. 8. So far as opposite party no. 2 is concerned, considering the fact that there is no concealment with regard to the criminal antecedent, I do not find anything against the opposite party no. 2 and the prayer for cancellation of bail of opposite party no. 2 is hereby rejected. 9. This application is partly allowed." Siyaram Shahi was the counsel for the petitioner. 

The Cr. Misc. application was filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Purnea by a common order dated October 4, 2024. 3. The cancellation for anticipatory bail granted to Manish Kumar Singh, Basant Rai and Rupesh Kumar, the opposite party nos. 2, 4 and 5 respectively which was filed on the ground that these opposite parties has suppressed their criminal antecedents and have obtained anticipatory bail from the Court below.

With regard to the same, the following statement was made in paragraph-13 of the bail cancellation petition which reads: “13. That on the false statement the opposite party no.2, 4 and 5 have obtain the order of Anticipatory Bail from the Sessions Court. Their  antecedent are as follows:
i. Dhamdaha P.S. Case No.340/2018 dated 26.11.2018 under sections 447, 341, 323, 327, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. and 3(i) (2) of SC/ST Act as the instant of one Ramchandra Marandi against Manish Kumar Singh, Rupesh Kumar and five others with regard to the grabbing of land.
ii. Dhamdaha P.S. Case No.63/2018 dated 10.03.2021 under sections 323, 341, 342, 427, 379, 504/34 I.P.C
against Manish Kumar Singh and Basant Kumar Ray by the informant Ranjan Kumar and two others with regard to grabbing of land.
iii. Dhamdaha P.S. Case No.258/2019 dated 05.01.2019 under sections 447, 427, 504, 506, 436 I.P.C. and 3(i) (2) SC/ST Act and 27 Arms Act against  Manish Kumar Singh and for others with regard to the grabbing of land.
iv. Sadar ST/SC P.S. Case No.7/2017 dated 08.02.2017 under sections 447, 341, 323, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(i) (r) (s)(g) SC/ST Act through the informant Sawan Marandi against Manish Kumar Singh and four others with regard to the grabbing of land.”

Supreme Court did not endorse the order by the High Court. It has approved the order by the the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Purnea. 

Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh declines to act as administrator, Bihar Cricket Association, Supreme Court appoints Justice Ashwini Kumar Singh as administrator

In Secretary, Bihar Cricket Association vs. Bihar Cricket Association & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwla and K.V. Viswanathan passed a 3-page long order dated September 16, 2026, wherein, it recorded:"1. By our order dated 20.8.2026, we appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, former Chief Justice of Odisha High Court to act as an administrator of the Bihar Cricket Association. However, Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh has addressed a letter expressing his regret to undertake this assignment for some personal reasons. 2. In such circumstances, we appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwini Kumar Singh, former Judge of the Patna High Court to act as an Administrator of the Bihar Cricket Association." 

The order added: "3. The learned Administrator shall proceed further in accordance with what has been recommended by the learned Ombudsman as contained in paragraph 91 of the recommendations. 4. The fees of the learned Administrator and other modalities shall be fixed in consultation with the parties. 5. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Justice Ashwini Kumar Singh at the earliest."

The order concluded:"6. We restrain the present Board from convening any Annual General Meeting or undertake any other exercise till the newly appointed learned Administrator Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwini Kumar Singh, takes over. 7. Any further action at the end of the present Board shall be undertaken only after obtaining approval from the newly appointed learned Administrator." It has listed the matter on December 9, 2026 at 3 PM.

Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao of Patna High Court authored his first judgment, heard 41 cases on the first day as Chief Justice

In Virendra Ram vs. The State of Bihar, Through the Chief Secretary, Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Sudhir Singh delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 15, 2026. It reads:"2. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily relatable to seeking a direction for inquiry against Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for illegally using the MGNREGA funds allotted to the Gram Panchayat, Gangauli. On specific query from the Court as to whether he has approached appropriate authority/the District Magistrate concerned, his answer is in the negative. 3. Even Dr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, learned Additional Advocate General- 02 appearing for the Respondents is of the view that the petitioner should have approached the District Magistrate concerned with his grievance to enable the District Magistrate apply his mind and pass appropriate orders. 4. On this, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he shall approach the concerned District Magistrate with his grievance. If that be so, if such a grievance is made through a representation, the same shall be considered by the District Magistrate who shall pass orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the representation. 5. With the direction aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of." This is the first judgment authored by the newly appointed 49th Chief Justice. The bench comprising Chief Justice Rao and Justice Singh passed 41 orders on September 15, on the first day of the Chief Justice. Most of the orders simply re-notified the cases for other dates.  

The petitioner had prayed for issue an appropriate Writ or Writs for issue direction to the respondents for submit complete report regarding Scheme of MANAREGA for direction to the appropriate agencies like C.B.I. or any other independent agencies for making appropriate inquiry against the Respondents specifically Respondent No. 7 and 8 who are Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Gangauli and Ward Member of Ward No. 13 of Gram Panchayat, Gangauli who grabbed the huge public money allotted by the State Government for implement of different Schemes like as Constructions of Ponds, Ways and etc. includes different Schemes without implement the Schemes in question on the spot with the collusion of the other respondents of this Writ application by which there is huge loss of the General people or public of the locality and also involvement of the said Respondents No. 6 and 7 is illegal appointments of the Safai Karmchari, Driver and some other employees of the concerned Gram Panchayat Gangauli by which there is great loss of public money and etc. of the general public and also of the concerned government for which illegal acts, appropriate action of recovery of the concerned loss amounts and also for taking appropriate action against them according to law.” The other respondents were: 2. District Collector, Buxar, 3. District Development Officer, Buxar. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraron,  Buxar, 5. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Buxar and Block Development Officer, Simari, Buxar. 

Bihar minister's election endangered by FIR of Mala Jha, and an Election Petition listed for hearing before Patna High Court

Nitish Mishra’s election from Jhanjahrapur, Madubani endangered by FIR of Mala Jha, and an Election Petition listed for hearing before Patna High Court

The election of Bihar minister of urban development, housing, information technology, Nitish Mishra endangered by FIR of Mala Jha and an Election Petition. The latter came for for hearing on September 16, 2026 before Patna High Court. 

In Ram Narayan Yadav vs. Nitish Mishra & Ors.(2026), Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna is representing Ram Narayan Yadav, one of the nine candidates of the Communist Party of India (CPI) who contested the assembly election. The result of the 2025 Bihar Assembly election was announced on November 14, 2025.  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, if there is any violation of specified rules through election petition. The High Court has accepted the petition. Nitish Mishra has failed to disclose in his election affidavit that there is a FIR pending against him. The criminal case bearing Andhratharhi P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 dated May 13, 2025 has not been disclosed in his election affidavit. The case is pending against him. The FIR was registered on a complaint by Mala Jha for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 324, 329 and 351 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The same has not been disclosed in Clause 5(ii) of Form-26 as part of his election affidavit. The case was registered in the A.C.J.M., Jhanjharpur as G.R. 863/2025, which has now been converted into Cr. Case Complaint (P)/0000357/2026 Mala Jha vs. Nitish Mishra on July 1, 2026. The case is listed for recording of solemn affirmation on October 10, 2026. 

The Cr. Case Complaint (P)/0000357/2026 Mala Jha vs. Nitish Mishra is related to demolition of the house of Mala Jha, wife of Uday Chandra Jha and cutting of two mango trees, wherein. She has alleged that her land has been grabbed illegitimately. The house and the two trees were on a 6-katha plot of land purchased by Mala Jha on September 24, .2020 (Deed No.4240, Circle:Andhartharhi, Serial No.4598) from Debanand Jha, son of Bhairwanand Jha who was the brother-in-law of Thakkan Jha. Chandrama Ojhain, the first wife of Thakkan Jha had donated this plot of land by a daan patra to her brother Sushil Jha, the nephew of Debanand Jha. But the fact is that Nitish Mishra has not disclosed this plot the land in his election affidavit but has taken control of Mala Jha’s land claiming it to be his land.  The FIR was registered in compliance with the High Court's order.

Supreme Court vacates its interim order in a case from Siwan, dismisses Special Leave Petition

In Kumari Mamta vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan  and Arun Palli passed a 2-page long order dated September 10, 026, wherein, it concluded:"3. Today, we are told that the petitioner is not willing to deposit. We passed the order of interim protection on the voluntary statement of the petitioner. The petitioner has not kept her words. We are initially inclined to impose cost but considering that it is a criminal matter, we refrained from doing so. 4. With the above observations, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The interim order will stand vacated. 5. Pending applications shall stand disposed of." 

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not willing to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- which, on her volition she undertook to deposit. The undertaking was given on 2nd July, 2026 and based on that interim protection was obtained. Not only this, when the period of six weeks was to expire, an application for extension was moved and two weeks further extension was obtained. When that extended period of two weeks also expired and the matter was posted on 7th September, 2026 a statement was made that a property transaction is culminating on 9th September, 2026 and since money would come into the hands of the petitioner, the money will be deposited. 

Earlier, Kumari Mamta vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed an order dated May 13, 2026, wherein, the 2-page long order reads: "3. The petitioner and her husband have appeared. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit.5. The petitioner and her husband both have undertaken to pay the entire amount of Rs. 21 lakhs within next four months in equal installments. 6. The first installment of Rs. 5.20 lakhs shall be paid by the petitioner in the office of Postal Superintendent, West Division, Siwan and thereafter, the petitioner shall pay the balance installments every month before him. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall be accepted by the Court below only after she produces a receipt of the payment of the first installment. If all the installments are paid, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide dated 23.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29834 of 2025 shall be confirmed. 7. This modification application is allowed to extend indicated above."