BCI Ki Garima Bachao Rashtriya Sangharsh Samiti formed

After the initiative of Allahabad and Bombay bar associations, on August 20, 2026, a meeting was held in the evening hours at Shatabdi Bhawan, Advocates Association, Patna High Court to launch BCI Ki Garima Bachao Rashtriya Sangharsh Samiti with BCI member Srinath Tripathy and Dharamnath Yadav, former BCI member as it's conveners. Samitis are being formed in all the states. 

Senior advocate Basant Chaudhary has been made the convener of Bihar Samiti and Ram Sandesh Rai has been made its secretary. Advocates believe that the BCI should respect the interests of advocates and their freedom of expression instead of making arbitrary decisions. BCI should come to the defence of advocates whenever they face assault on their rights. 

Prior to this, the coordination committee of the three associations of advocates issued a joint statement to communicate to the organiser of the meeting that the premises of the Shatabdi Bhawan cannot be used without prior application and permission. 

The newly formed organization of lawyers and jurists has been formed in the backdrop of protests against Chairman, BCI. The main objective of this protest committee is to protect the reputation, transparency, and democratic rights of lawyers of the Bar Council of India (BCI). 

Besides BCI member from Uttar Pradesh, Advocate Srinath Tripathi, BCI member Manoj Kumar Narendran, from Kerala, called for chairman's resignation. The latter made this  demand directly before the General Council. Senior Advocate Sadasiva Reddy, BCI Co-Chairman has also sought his resignation who is BCI's chairman for more than 14 years. 

Supreme Court sets aside bail denial order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra in a case of kidnapping, abduction for marriage from Shivrajpur, Nautan, West Champaran

In Ranjit Patel vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi passed 6-page long order dated August 20, 2026, wherein, it set aside the  order dated March 13, 20266 passed by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court. Te Supreme Court concluded:"Having regard to the above, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage, pending trial. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. 8. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The submission on behalf of the appellant was that statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is exculpatory in nature and indicates that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was based on consent. Further, though the allegation is that victim is minor, her Aadhar Card entry reflects that she is an adult. Even otherwise, the age certificate which has been relied upon by the prosecution would reveal that she is well above 17 years. In such circumstances, it is submitted, whether the victim is of the age of consent or not would be determined in trial and, therefore, the appellant who has no previous criminal antecedents is entitled to be released on bail. The counsel for the respondent could not dispute that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had disclosed a relationship based on consent. 

Earlier, in Ranjit Patel vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order dated March 13, 2026, wherein, he had concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial."

The petitioner had approached the High Court for bail in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 340 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sections 137(2), 87, and 3(5) outline criminal charges related to kidnapping, abduction, and joint liability for acts done with a common intention. 

The prosecution case is that the petitioner kidnapped informant’s minor daughter with an intention to marry her. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. He also submitted that there was love affair in between the petitioner and the victim. It was submitted that she went with the petitioner on her own will and solemnized marriage with him in Nepal. It was also submitted that the medical report of the victim does not support the prosecution case. The petitioner is in custody since July 14, 2025 and has got no criminal antecedent. The APP for the State and the counsel for the informant had opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It was submitted that the victim is a minor girl and there is specific allegation against the petitioner of enticing away the victim for the purpose of marriage. Hence,
the petitioner did not deserve the privilege of bail. 

Supreme Court reverses Justice Sandeep Kumar's order, grants regular bail

In Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi passed an order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, it reversed the order dated April 20, 2026 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court, and granted regular bail. Even according to the prosecution there was no recovery of weapon from the appellant. 

Supreme Court's order reads: "Hence, we are of the considered view that the Appellant is entitled for bail, released on regular bail. The appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and appropriate by the jurisdictional Court."

The appellant was arraigned as an accused in a FIR of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He approached the Supreme Court for being enlarged on regular bail after his prayer made before the Trial Court and the High Court was negatived.

Supreme Court's order recorded that from the submissions of the advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the counter affidavit, it "emerged from the records that the allegation made in the complaint is the effect that appellant and co-accused had arrived at the informant’s house with firearms and lathis and it was alleged that appellant fired at the informant namely Binod Kumar causing a gunshot injury in left eye."

The counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the FIR is counter blast to the attack initiated by the informant side and in this regard, an FIR has been registered in FIR No.298 of 2025 by the appellant’s family alleging that the informant side had attacked with sticks and Binod Kumar had fired from country made pistol 6 to 7 times. Hence, the appellant sought for grant of regular bail. The advocates appearing for the parties, it emerged from the records that co-accused (had already been enlarged on bail). Although there was a specific allegation of firing against the appellant, the fact remains that, as per the averments made in the complaint that other co-accused also had carried the firearms.  

Earlier, in Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Kumar had passed a 2-page long order dated April 20, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has fired and injured the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed." The petitioner had approached the High Court for bail in connection with a Koilwar P.S. Case No. 297/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of Arms Act. 

Section 190: Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of a common object. 

Section 191(2): Rioting (using force or violence as an unlawful assembly of 5 or more people), punishable with up to 2 years imprisonment, a fine, or both. 

Section 191(3): Rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Section 126(2): Punishment for wrongful restraint (voluntarily obstructing someone to prevent them from moving in a direction they have a right to go).

Section 115(2): Voluntarily causing hurt (physical assault/marpit), punishable with up to 1 year imprisonment, a fine up to ₹10,000, or both.

Section 109: Punishment for abetment if the act abetted is committed and no explicit provision is made for its punishment.

Section 352: Punishment for assault or use of criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation.

Section 351(2) and (3): Criminal intimidation; sub-section (3) applies if the threat involves causing death, grievous hurt, or destruction of property, carrying a higher imprisonment term (up to 7 years)

Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act of 1959: sets the penalties for using arms and ammunition illegally. The severity of the punishment depends on whether standard or prohibited weapons are involved and if the illegal use results in loss of life.

As per the prosecution case, petitioner is a accused of firing upon the victim and causing fire arm injury in the thigh. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. It was also submitted that the injury was not on the vital part of the body of the victim. He submitted that he was no criminal antecedent in which he was on bail and he was in custody since December 29, 2025. The petitioner is the son of Baliram Rai, a resident of Chhotaka Chanda, Koilwar, Bhojpur. Now Supreme Court has granted bail to the petitioner. 

.

Supreme Court appoints Justice (Retd) Chakradhari Sharan Singh as Administrator of Bihar Cricket Association

Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta appointed as Ombudsman, Bihar Cricket Association 

In Secretary, Bihar Cricket Association vs. Bihar Cricket Association & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan passed a 6-page long order dated August 20, 2026, wherein, the Court appointed Justice (Retd) Chakradhari Sharan Singh, as the Administrator of Bihar Cricket Association. The order recorded that in para 90 of the recommendations, the Ombudsman has suggested that an Administrator be appointed by the Supreme Court who shall be tasked with conducting a verification exercise across all District Cricket Associations (DCAs), similar to the exercise undertaken in 2022 by the Ombudsman appointed Committee. 

The order reads:"6. In view of the aforesaid, we appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, to act as an Administrator of the Bihar Cricket Association. 7. 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, referred to above. 8. The fees of the learned Administrator and other modalities shall be fixed in consultation with the parties. 9. We are informed that there are some objections on record insofar as the Report of the learned Ombudsman is concerned. We shall look into the same at an appropriate time. 10. As an interim measure, we direct that the recommendations shall come into force forthwith and be implemented. 11. We expect all the parties to cooperate and extend full cooperation to the learned Administrator we have appointed today. 12. We have already appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, former Judge of this Court as the Ombudsman of the Bihar Cricket Association." 

Supreme Court to pronounce its verdict on the judgment passed by Justice Anjana Prakash led Division Bench in a murder case from Arara, Adapur, East Champaran

A criminal appeal, Dhrub Singh vs. The State of Bihar was filed in the Supreme Court on April 16, 2016 was filed against the judgment authored by Justice Anjana Prakash of Patna High Court as part of a Division Bench. It was registered on August 14, 2017. Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the matter on January 23, 2025 and passed a 3-page long order. The arguments were concluded on August 21, 2026 and the order was reserved. The counsels appearing for the parties to file their respective written submissions by August 22, 2026.

In this case three appellants have prayed for bail pending the final disposal of their respective criminal appeals which are pending for final hearing before the Court. They were convicted for the offence of murder and their appeals by before the High Court also failed. Supreme Court took notice of the fact that in all eight accused were put to trial. One of the co-accused died during the pendency of the trial. The main accused who is said to have fired had already undergone the sentence of life imprisonment and was released. Out of six convicts, three were ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide orders dated August 10, 2022, December 5, 2022 and July 17, 2023 respectively. The order reads: "7. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are inclined to consider the plea of the three appellants before us for bail. 8. They have also undergone almost 9 years of sentence so far. Out of the three appellants, two of the appellants have undergone almost 9 years of sentence so far, whereas the third appellant has undergone 8 years & 5 months of sentence. 9. All the applications for bail stand allowed. 10. The appellants(convicts) are ordered to be released on bail subject to the same terms and conditions as imposed in the orders passed by this Court at the time of releasing the other co-accused on bail."

In Dhrub Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2015), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Anjana Prakash and Rajendra Kumar Mishra delivered a 20-page long judgment dated December 9, 2015, wherein, it concluded:"16. As for alternative argument of considering the case of non-assailants, even while we are inclined to disbelieve the prosecution case in so far as the Appellant Chunnu Singh having ordered Appellant Pappu Singh to fire is concerned, but fact remains that all the accused variously armed had come together and fired which makes out a case of accused having common intention/object to commit murder of the deceased. In such circumstances, we find no merit in such submission. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in these appeals. The same is dismissed." The judgement was authored by Justice Prakash. 

The appellant Pappu Singh was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C., 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 I.P.C., 2 years R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. and 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act and also fine of Rs.3000. 

The appellant Dhrub Singh and Appellant Dharmender Singh @ Tarzan Singh @ Tarzan and appellant Dharmendra Singh were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 I.P.C., 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C., 2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. and 3 years rigorous imprisonmentunder Section 27 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs.3000/. The appellant Chunnu Singh @ Subhash Chandra Singh @ Subhash Chander Singh and appellants Brajesh Singh and Subhash Singh were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 I.P.C., 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. by judgment dated 29.11.2010 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in a Sessions Trial of 2002.

The case of the prosecution according to the Informant Kundan Kumar (P.W.7), son of the deceased, was that on April 19, 2001 at about 2.30 p.m. he left home along with the deceased Braj Bhushan Singh, their Sepoy Chandeshwar Singh, co-villager Bhagirath Thakur and cousin Nilesh Kumar Sharma for their agricultural farm. When they were in the middle of Arara village and Laxmipur School at about 03.30 p.m. suddenly 7-8 persons came, who were identified as Chunnu Singh, Pappu Singh, out of which Chunnu Singh told Pappu Singh to fire at the deceased Braj Bhushan Singh and he did so on taking position from the back, on account of which his father fell down. Just then Appellant Dhrub Singh fired at him but he was somehow saved. They all started running but Brajesh Singh ordered that everyone should be killed else they would go to the police, at which Appellants Dharmendra singh @ Tarzan and Dharmendra Singh started firing but their shots did not hit them. They noticed a patrolling party approaching, at which the accused started fleeing, saying that the deceased had been killed which needed to be reported to Madan Singh that the work had been accomplished. They then took the deceased to Dunkan Hospital, Raxaul but the doctor declared him dead. The dead body of his father was brought home. The motive for the occurrence was that the daughter of Major Harendra Singh had been kidnapped on August 29, 2000 by his co-villager Ramesh Singh. The past Mukhiya Madan Mohan Singh, Dharmendra Singh son of Madan Mohan Singh, Chunnu Singh, Dharmendra Singh @ Tarzan, Subhash Singh, Sanjeet Singh, Manoj Singh, Arvind Singh, Brajesh Singh had come to his village and proposed to his father that he was a reputed person and he should try to use his influence for recovering the girl. His father had made enquiry but it was found that Ramesh Singh had fled away with the girl, on account of which the girl was not recovered. Madan Mohan Singh had felt insulted on account of the inability of the Appellant and had started instigating others that the deceased had played with the reputation of their villagers. On September 12, 2000 Adapur P.S. case was instituted in regard to the case aforesaid. His brother Sanju Dubey (P.W.5) was also sought to be implicated in the case but final report was submitted in his regard. Then in another case, namely, Adapur P.S. case of 2000, once again his name was given but final report was submitted. His cousin brother Satyendra Dubey was a candidate for Mukhiya election and there was every chance of his winning which had caused apprehension in the mind of Madan Mohan Singh, the previous Mukhiya, Arera, who had got the deceased killed. This information was given in the presence of Nilesh Kumar (P.W.2) and Hridesh Dubey (P.W.3) at 06.45 p.m. at home. 

The counsel for the appellants submitted that the manner of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution on account of various factors, one of which is that important witnesses, such as, patrolling party and the Doctor at Dunkan Hospital have not been examined. P.W.2 and P.W.7 have stated that they did not see anyone while they were walking behind each other during or after the occurrence and hence their depiction of the manner of occurrence is not proved. Further independent witnesses, even by way of hearsay, have not been examined and only interested witnesses, who are somehow related with the deceased, have been produced by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has committed various lapses including not establishing the place of occurrence and the inquest report and the map prepared by him are contrary to each other. He also did not find any holes in the clothes which the deceased was wearing nor blood on him. He did not produce the blood stained earth nor did he seize the clothes on the person of the deceased and the witnesses, who are said to have carried the deceased to the patrolling party, nor did he send the same. In fact, neither the Informant nor P.W.1 was present at the place of occurrence as is evident from the evidence of P.W.6. Even though it is a case of direct evidence, since the prosecution has brought forth motive for the occurrence they were duty bound to conclusively prove the same. The prosecution case suffers on this count as well. The Doctor’s evidence also further disproves the prosecution case inasmuch as the injuries found on the deceased appear to have been caused while a person would be in a supine position and the time of occurrence in his opinion being about 36 hours before the examination does not match with the prosecution case. The further submission is that the deceased’s own agnates had a grudge with the deceased and there is every possibility of him having been killed by them. In the alternative, the argument is also that there is specific allegation of firing against Appellant Pappu Singh on the orders of Chunnu Singh but no overt act is alleged with regard to the rest of the accused persons and hence they deserve to be acquitted. 

In her judgement, Justice Prakash had observed: "15. On looking into the records of the case, we find that soon after the occurrence a protest petition had been filed against the Investigating Officer that he was making a collusive investigation which explains as to why he did not record the statements of independent witnesses nor send the blood stained earth for chemical examination, nor seize the blood stained clothes on the person of the deceased or the witnesses. In such circumstances, the argument that the prosecution has not been able to prove the manner of occurrence or the presence of the witnesses for the aforesaid reason has to be rejected. As for the manner of occurrence, we find that the consistent evidence is that all the witnesses were walking behind each other and suddenly the accused persons sprang upon them and shot at the deceased from the back, on account of which he fell down on his face. From their evidence the fact that they did not hear any accused before the firing or even during the firing is well explained since from the manner narrated it appears that the occurrence had not taken place within minutes. In such circumstances, when Pappu Singh was not being seen before firing at the deceased from the back and the rest firing at the witnesses to scatter them off or even to kill them is well plausible. Also the fact that scratches were found on the face of the deceased further corroborates the prosecution case that after the firing from the back the deceased had fallen on his face. As for the injuries being oval or circular has no meaning in the present case since it is most natural that a person’s hand would shake and not be completely stable while firing is made within a split of second especially when the target is moving. The doctor no doubt stated in his cross examination that when he said that the occurrence had taken place within 36 hours he had meant that it could be within 24 to 36 hours, is not acceptable by the Court. Once he has stated in his examination-in-chief that it was within 36 hours it certainly means that it was within 36 hours and such minute timing of death so precisely could not be given by him especially when he has mentioned that rigor mortis was present."

Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra sets aside order by A.C.J.M.-IV, Muzaffarpur

In Phuldeo Thakur & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.(2026), Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of Patna High Court delivered a 11-page long judgement dated August 20, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "even if the allegations contained in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation are accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose any specific role or overt act attributable to the present petitioners. The allegations of dowry demand and cruelty have been made collectively against the accused persons without specifying the individual conduct of the petitioners. Thus, the materials on record do not disclose the necessary factual foundation for proceeding against the petitioners under either Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of such criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Muzaffarpur in connection with Trial No.2887 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.2700 of 2017, insofar as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, stands quashed qua the present petitioners."

The High Court observed:" 14.The Supreme Court has consistently held that in matrimonial disputes, relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted merely because their names have been mentioned in the complaint or because they are members of the husband’s family. Where the allegations against the relatives are general and omnibus and do not disclose their specific or active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry harassment, continuation of criminal proceedings against such relatives amounts to abuse of the process of law. The Court has cautioned that the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes must be curtailed and that there must be specific allegations indicating the individual role of the relative sought to be prosecuted. 

Justice Mishra observed:"The same principle is particularly applicable in the present case, where the petitioners are in-laws and the complaint does not attribute any specific overt act to either of them. Mere relationship with the husband, without a specific allegation of participation in dowry demand or cruelty, cannot constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has reiterated that generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution against family members in matrimonial disputes. 

16. The principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. were authoritatively laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Supreme Court illustrated categories of cases in which the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise secure the ends of justice. One such category is where the allegations made in the complaint or F.I.R., even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. Another category covers cases where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey dismises BJP MLA Rajesh Kumar Singh's interlocutory application against maintainable of election petition by RJD's Dr. Ejya Yadav

In Dr. Ejya Yadav vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. (2026), Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 61-page long judgement dated August 12, 2026, wherein, he concluded:" 44.....this is not a fit case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and also from perusal of the election petition it is clear that it makes out a cause of action. 45. Accordingly, I.A. No. 04 of 2026 stands dismissed." 

In paragraph 77 of the Supreme Court's decision in Harkirat Singh vs. Amrinder Singh, reported in MANU/SC/2461/2005, wherein, the Court has held the High Court cannot step into prohibited area of appreciating the evidence and by entering into merits of the case which would be permissible only at the stage of trial of the election petition and not at the stage of consideration whether the election petition was maintainable. The attention of the Court was drawn towards this decision by the counsel for the petitioner. 

Rajesh Singh Singh's counsel had stated that the election petition does not make out any cause of action and as such the same is liable to be dismissed as threshold by referring to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which states that "The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;...." 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the election petition of the petitioner attracts any of the provisions of Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, it cannot be said that it does not discloses a cause of action. He submitted that from perusal of the affidavit Form-26 it will transpire that material information have been concealed. The returned candidate concealed his antecedents and his income as well. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the nomination of a candidate was improperly rejected or accepted, this sole can be a ground for declaring the election to be void in view of Section 100 of the Representation of People Act. It was submitted that the issues which are raised by the petitioner are matter of trial and without trial, this issue cannot be determined.  

This interlocutory application (I.A.) by Rajesh Kumar Singh, the BJP MLA from Mohiuddinnagar, Samastipur was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 86 Sub-clause 1 of the Representation of People Act for rejection of plaint since the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and the election is barred by the proviso to Section 83 (I) (C) read with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 as a necessary affidavit in Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 was required to be furnished by the election petitioner at the time of filing the election petition. 

The I.A. was against the election petition filed by RJD candidate, Dr. Ejya Yadav, the election petitioner for declaring the election of Rajesh Kumar Singh, the BJP candidate  from 137 Mohiuddinnagar Assembly Constituency in the election held on November 6, 2025 to be void, allegedly for improper acceptance of the nomination paper filed by Rajesh Kumar Singh and for wrong rejection of the nomination paper of another candidate, namely Ramjit Thakur. 

The I.A. submitted that the election petition was fit to be rejected in view of the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 (A) and (D) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 read with Section 86 Sub-clause 1 of the Representation of People Act because the allegation leveled in the election petition with respect to non-disclosure of criminal cases against Rajesh Kumar Singh is absolutely vague and lacks necessary averment to substantiate that Sing has concealed any information in this regard which was required to be disclosed as per Section 33A of the Representation of People Act.  It was submitted that the election petition lacks averment to the effect that respondent number 1 was accused of an offense punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by a court of competent jurisdiction or he has been convicted of an offense and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. In the absence of any averment to the said effect, it cannot be said that the answering respondent has not furnished the requisite details in the nomination form with respect to his criminal antecedents. It was not stated anywhere in the election petition that Singh had knowledge about any criminal case pending against him on the date of filing of nomination. In the absence of any averment in the election petition that Singh had any knowledge about the criminal case or charges having been framed in a criminal case, the said ground does not give any cause of action to the election petitioner and that there is no any averment in the election petition that the non-disclosure of the information relating to a criminal case has materially affected the election of the returned candidate, in the absence of which the petition on the grounds mentioned under Section 100(1)(d)(i) is not maintainable. It was submitted that even if the allegation of concealment of criminal antecedent is found to be true and if found to have materially affected the election of the returned candidate, it would amount to undue influence and therefore, the filing of Form 26 is essential and mandatory. In the absence of which, the present election petition is not maintainable. It was also submitted that the election petition also deserves to fail for non-joinder of a candidate, namely Ramjit Thakur, as a party to the election petition. Since the election petitioner has sought to sustain the election petition also on the ground that the nomination paper of the candidate was improperly rejected. In the absence of Ramjit Thakur being a party to this list, this ground cannot be entertained by the High Court. Justice Pandey was not persuaded by these submissions made in the I.A.  

Notably, similar submissions have been made by Nitish Mishra, the Bihar's minister of urban development and information technology in his I.A. against the maintainability of the election petition filed Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel of Ram Narayan Yadav, the candidate of Communist Party of India (CPI) from Jhanjharpur, Madhubani. The election petition has submitted that Mishra has failed to disclose the FIR filed against him consequent to the order of the High Court by Mala Jha. Hindustan, The Bihar Report, Action Bharat News Kashish News, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran, The Times of India, Bihar Scan,  Young Bharat News, Daily Hunt and News4Nation have reported about it.