Supreme Court allows appeal, sets aside order by Jutice Dr. Anshuman in a kidnapping of minor case

In Nikhil Kumar @ Paras vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan passed a 5-page long order dated March 25, 2026, wherein, it allowed appeal, setting aside 2-page long order by Justice Dr. Anshuman of the Patna High Court dated August 13, 2025. The order concluded:"Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 482 of BNSS. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 13.08.2025. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties."

An FIR was lodged against two named accused persons, including the appellant, with the allegation that they kidnapped the daughter of the informant. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged victim was recovered and has given her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. before the police and under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. In her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., she did not make any allegation against anyone, rather, she disclosed that she had left the house of her own will. He also submitted that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner was clean.

Justice Dr. Anshuman had observed: "6. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the victim is a minor, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected." 

Apprehending arrest in connection with crime registered pursuant to FIR of 2024 dated June 3, 2024 lodged with P.S. Wajirganj, District Gaya in respect of the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in terms of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court vide the impugned order, the instant appeal was preferred. 

Section 366 A of IPC deals with procuration of minor girl. It reads: "Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Punishment procuration of minor girl 10 years and fine. It cognizable and non-Bailable which is tried by Court of Session.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the offences alleged against him are wholly false inasmuch as there was a consensual relationship between the appellant and the so-called victim who was about 17/18 years of age at the relevant point of time; that in fact there was a marriage between the parties and subsequently owing to a marital dispute a criminal colour has been given to the entire dispute. He submitted that this Court by interim order dated December 3, 2025 had granted protection to the appellant herein subject to his cooperation in the investigation.; that the appellant was cooperating with the investigation. In the circumstances, the interim order may be made absolute. 

Supreme Court's prder is apparently based on the fact that the alleged victim  had gone with the petitioner of her own will. She had also stated that she married the petitioner and that they developed a physical relationship on 1–2 occasions.

Supreme Court sets aside onerous condition imposed by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma while granting anticipatory bail

In Vinay Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. K Singh passed a 4-page long order dated March 25, 2026, wherein it concluded: "5. The appeal lies in a narrow compass. While granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, a condition has been imposed by the High Court vide the impugned order to the effect that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- to the informant. Alleging the said condition to be onerous as the High Court has not considered it in the proper prospective, the present appeal is filed. 6. We find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. When the condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail is onerous, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law, especially, when we are dealing with a case pertaining to the liberty of a person. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned condition with respect to the payment of a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- stands set aside and the appeal is allowed, accordingly." The Court allowed the appeal after condoning the delay in case from Siwan pertaining to offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860..

In his 5-page long order dated Jnaury 23, 2025, Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma had concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No.03 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS,2023 and with other following conditions:-(I) At the time of furnishing bail bond, the petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,50,000/-(Rs.One Lac Fifty Thousand) by way of demand draft in favour of the informant and the learned Trial Court is directed to hand over the said demand  draft to the informant or his representative and petitioner shall pay rest amount of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs. One Lac Ten Thousand) to the informant in the month of February, 2025. If the petitioner fails to pay the rest amount within the aforesaid period, the informant shall be at liberty to move before the learned court below for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. (II) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (IV) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification." 

Now Supreme Court has set aside the onerous condition imposed by Justice Verma.    

Supreme Court waives cost imposed by Patna High Court's Division Bench in a matter of service termination

In Shashi Prakash vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice  anjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 2-page long order dated March 25, 2026. The petitioner had challenged the order dated January 8, 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12099/2023 by Justice Mohit K. Shah and 2-page long order dated September 17, 2025 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.229/2024 passed by Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Sinha of the Patna High Court. Supreme Court's order reads: "4. Petitioner can take recourse to such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law and in terms of the liberty already granted by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 08.01.2024. Insofar as the cost imposed by the learned Division Bench is concerned, the same is waived off. If the amount is already deposited, the same shall be refunded forthwith to the petitioner." 

In the order authored by Justice Bajanthri had observed: "....it is crystal clear that at the behest of learned counsel for the petitioner, both the litigations have been withdrawn. Upon that the appellant has assailed the aforementioned orders in the present LPA. 3. Thus the LPA is not maintainable, accordingly, the present LPA stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Cost shall be remitted in the Lawyers’ Association Welfare Benevolent Fund, Indian Bank...."

Prior to this, in his order as Single Judge, Justice Shah had recorded that in the  writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 31.05.1997 as contained in Memo No. 3177 dated 02.06.1997, passed by Respondent No. 2 communicated to the Respondent No. 4 vide Memo No. 442 dated 24.06.1997, by the Respondents No. 3 for its communicated the petitioner by the Respondent No. 3. Thereafter Memo No. 533 dated 24.06.1996 and Memo No. 7684 dated 29.08.1995 by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated on entirely non est ground. As post has been abolished issued by Respondent No. 3 and petitioner was relieved form his service and for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the his post at Gaya and not to interfere with them duties and also to make payment of his salary regularly with entire dues amount and pass order or orders, writ or writs and direction or directions.” Justice Shah had also recorded that the counsel for the petitioner sought not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, for redressal of the aforesaid grievances. Liberty, so sought, is granted. 3. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed." 

The other three respondents were:Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Regional Animal Husbandry Department,through the Regional Animal Husbandry Director Magadh Range, Area, Gaya and District Animal Husbandry Department,through the District Animal Husbandry Officer Magadh Range, Gaya. 

 

Supreme Court reverses order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh, grants bail in a rape-murder case

In Dheeraj Jha @ Dheeraj Kumar @ Raghav vs. The State of Bihar, Supreme Court's Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and N.K Singh passed a 5-page long order dated March 25, 2026 setting aside the order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. The Supreme Court noted that upon completion of investigation the appellant was chargesheeted only for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and not other offences. The appellant was the superior of the deceased. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC were not made out and in any case, the deceased committed suicide pursuant to an alleged extra-marital affair with the appellant. Considering the aforesaid submissions made, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant, particularly, by taking note of the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant and the facts governing the case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. 

In his 3-page long order dated December 1, 2025, Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh rejected the prayer of the petitioner who sought bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 328, 376D and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, it was alleged that the petitioner, along with another co-accused, namely Dheeraj Jha, committed rape with the wife of informant and thereafter, administered her poison due to which, during course of treatment, she died. The senior counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was quite innocent and had committed no offence. Informant was not an eye witness of the occurrence. As a matter of fact, wife of informant and the petitioner used to work at the same Office and on the alleged date and time of occurrence, wife of informant was getting unconscious and therefore, this petitioner, along with co-accused Dheeraj Jha, took her to a hospital and her husband was also informed. Moreover, charge-sheet had already been submitted and petitioner was in custody since November 19, 2024. The petitioner had got no criminal antecedents. A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant had submitted that petitioner was named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he, along with another accused person, committed rape with the victim and administered her poison. On the way to hospital, the victim herself narrated the whole incident to the informant. Justice Singh had concluded: "6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant bail of to the petitioner is rejected. 7. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2024, the learned trial court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."

Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma in a dowry death case

In Lal Muni Devi vs. The State  of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 12-page long order dated March 25, 2026 wherein, it set aside a 4-page long order dated January 16, 2026 by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court. Supreme Court concluded: "12. The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is wholly unsustainable. In a very serious crime like dowry death, the High Court should have been very careful in exercising its discretion. The High Court in its impugned Order has not discussed anything. All that weighed with the High Court was that the accused was in judicial custody and only two witnesses had been examined till the date the High Court passed the impugned order. 13. The High Court lost sight of many important aspects of the matter, more particularly the post-mortem report indicating number of injuries on the body of the deceased, and the presumption of commission of offence as provided under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023." 

In Vikash Kumar vs. The State of Bihar  Cr. Misc. No. 80290 of 2025, in his order dated January 16, 2026, Justice Verma had concluded: "....let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patna in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024", subject to certain specified conditions given the fact that the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future and the petitioner was in custody since September 2, 2024.  

Prior to this in a 2-page long order dated May 16, 2025 in Vikash Kumar vs. The State of Bihar  Cr. Misc. No. 24229 of 2025, Justice Verma had concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna." Supreme Court appeared startled by change of the order within seven months. 

Notably, Justice Verma had recorded the submission of counsel for the Informant as well as APP for the State that the petitioner had committed the murder of the deceased and she has been died within one and half years of the marriage and witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.   

This appeal against the order by Justice Verma had reached the Supreme Court at the instance of the original complainant (mother of the deceased), seeking to challenge the legality and validity of the Order passed by the High Court dated January 16, 2026, releasing the Respondent No.2 - original accused (husband of the deceased), on bail in connection with the First Information Report dated September 1, 2024 registered with the Gopalpur Police station, State of Bihar for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. respectively. It appeared from the materials on record that the deceased was married to the accused past 1½ years. On September 1, 2024, the deceased was found dead at her matrimonial home in suspicious circumstances with external and internal injuries all over her body. The mother of the deceased lodged an FIR on the very same day and date. 

Supreme Court's order reads: "18. We are informed that the trial is in progress. On this ground alone, the High Court should have declined bail. 19. We are of the view that the impugned Order deserves to be set aside. The bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled and the Respondent No.2 - accused should be directed to surrender before the jail authorities. We order accordingly. 20. We clarify that our present observations are limited to deciding whether the bail granted by the High Court is liable to be cancelled. The trial court shall proceed on its own assessment of evidence uninfluenced by any of the remarks made herein. 21. The Trial Court shall see to it that the trial is completed within six months from today. 22. We grant one week’s time to the Respondent No.2 to surrender before the jail authority, failing which the trial court shall issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest. 23. The appeal stands disposed of. 24. There is a connected petition filed by the State seeking the very same relief of cancellation of bail. 25. In view of the order passed in the petition filed by the de-facto complainant, we need not pass a separate order in the petition filed by the State. 26. The same is disposed of accordingly. 27. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 28. The Registry shall forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Patna who shall in turn place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna."

Remembering Asokan edicts on 2331st birth anniversary of Asoka, the Buddhist

In Outline of History (1920), H.G. Wells declared Asoka to be one of the six greatest men of history (the others being Buddha, Socrates, Aristotle, Roger Bacon and Abraham Lincoln), and he wrote about Asoka (in his "") in the following terms: "Asoka (264-227 B.C.) was one of greatest monarchs of history whose dominions extended from Afghanistan what is now the province of Madras. He is the only military monarch on record who abandoned. warfare after victory." 

Asoka had invaded Kalinga in 225 B. C. After the conquest, he declared that he would no longer seek conquest by war, but by religion, and the rest of his life was devoted to the spreading of Buddhism throughout the world. 

About Asoaka, Wells wrote: "He seems to have ruled his vast empire in peace and with great ability. He was no mere religious fanatic. But in the year of his one and only war he joined the Buddhist community as a layman, and some years later he became a full member of the Order, and devoted himself to the attainment of Nirvana by the Eightfold Path" including Right Aspiration, Right Effort and Right Livelihood. 

He set up long inscriptions rehearsing the teaching of Buddha. About thirty-five of his inscriptions survive even today. These are available at Serial nomination for Ashokan Edict sites along the Mauryan Routes.  These edicts can be seen at https://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/gallery/photos/6.html

The Asokan edicts hold the distinction of being the first written inscriptions in India following the decline of the ancient city of Harappa. Most of these edicts remain visible at their original locations due to being carved into immovable rocks and boulders. 

Through these inscriptions on stones and pillars, Asoka shared pivotal moments from his royal life. His words offer a glimpse into how he reshaped his own journey while attempting to transform the lives of people within his empire and even beyond its borders. 

The Asokan edicts convey a wide range of emotions, including sincerity and sentiment, discussions of death and devastation and authoritative commands. The remarkable preservation of these rock edicts is notable. 

Despite being over 2,200 years old, many of them appear almost exactly as they did when they were originally created. The survival of such ancient documents in their original form and locations is quite unusual. All of these rock edict sites are protected by Archaeological Survey of India.

The first known edict, sometimes classified as a Minor Rock Edict, is the Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription, in Greek and in Aramaic, written in the 10th year of his reign (260 BCE) at the border of his empire with the Hellenistic world, in the city of Old Jandahar in modern Afghanistan.

Asoka then made the first edicts in the Indian language, written in the Brahmi script, from the 11th year of his reign (according to his own inscription, "two and a half years after becoming a secular Buddhist", i.e. two and a half years at least after returning from the Kalinga conquest of the eighth year of his reign, which is the starting point for his remorse towards the horrors of the war, and his gradual conversion to Buddhism). The texts of the inscriptions are rather short, the technical quality of the engraving of the inscriptions is generally very poor, and generally very inferior to the pillar edicts dated to the years 26 and 27 of Asoka's reign.

There are several slight variations in the content of these edicts, depending on location, but a common designation is usually used, with Minor Rock Edict N°1 (MRE1) and a Minor Rock Edict N°2 (MRE2, which does not appear alone but always in combination with Edict N°1), the different versions being generally aggregated in most translations. 

The Maski version of Minor Rock Edict No.1 is historically particularly important in that it confirmed the association of the title "Devanampriya" with the name "Asoka", thereby clarifying the historical author of all these inscriptions. In the Gujarra version of Minor Rock Edict No.1 also, the name of Ashoka is used together with his full title: Devanampiya Piyadasi Asokaraja.

There is also a unique Minor Rock Edict No.3, discovered next to Bairat Temple, for the Buddhist clergy, which gives a list of Buddhist scriptures (most of them unknown now) which the clergy should study regularly.

His edicts (Dhamma Lipi) incised on pillars and rocks, in both condensed and elaborate versions are found all over the Indian sub-continent, from Shahbazgarhi now in Pakistan to Lauriya Nanadagarh in Bihar and from Girnar in Gujarat to Dhauli In Orissa and further south up to Yerragudi in Andhra Pradesh.

The Girnar edicts represented here by a metal cast of the inscribed rock are fourteen in umber, like those found at Yerragudi, Kalsi, Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra.

1. No living being may be slaughtered for sacrifice.

2. In and outside his dominions, Priyadarshi Ashoka has arranged for the medical treatment of man and beast.

3. Priyadarshi Ashoka ordered tours by his officers every five years to inspect and preach Dhamma (moral and social code of conduct) in his dominions, in addition to their regular duties and to teach his people to obey parents, be liberal to friends, relatives, Brahmanas and Sramanas (Monks), to abstain from killing animals.

4. Priyadarshi promotes Dhamma and expects his descendants like wise to continue to promote it.

5. Dhamma Mahamatras have been appointed for establishing and promoting Dhamma in his land even among the Yavanas, Kambojas, Gandharas, Rashtrikas and others.

6. Reports of affairs in his kingdom could be brought to his notice anytime, as he considered it his duty constantly and speedily to attend to the welfare of his subjects.

7. Priyadarshi wishes that all religious sects in his dominion should like in peace and amity and stresses self-control and purity of mind.

8. Priyadarshi who visited Sambodhi (Bodh Gaya, Bihar) started on pilgrimage of Dhamma making gift to Brahmanas and Sramanas, contacting the people of the countryside and exhorting them to follow the path of Dhamma.

9. Ceremonies associated with Dhamma produce great results. These are courtesy to slaves and servants, reverence to elders, restraint and liberality to Brahmanas and Sramanas. By this practice heaven is won.

10. Priyadarshi does not consider glory in this life or fame after death as of any consequences except the glory of his being able to induce his people to practice Dhamma.

11. There is no gift like the gift of Dhamma, there is no distribution like the distribution of Dhamma and no kinship like the kinship of Dhamma.

12. The growth of Dhamma is by the restraint of speech which means no praise of one’s own faith or disparagement of another.

13. The conquest of Kalinga resulting in unprecedented slaughter and carrying away of captives brought remorse to Priyadarshi. He was therefore determined for conquest through Dhamma.

14. This record relating to Dhamma has been inscribed in abridged or expanded form, so that people may act accordingly. 

The individual morality that Asoka propagated respect (//susrusa//) towards parents, elders, teachers, friends, servants, ascetics and brahmins -- behavior that accords with the advice given to Sigala by the Buddha (Digha Nikaya, Discourse No. 31). He encouraged generosity (//dana//) to the poor (//kapana valaka//), to ascetics and brahmins, and to friends and relatives. Not surprisingly, Asoka encouraged harmlessness towards all life (//avihisa bhutanam//). In conformity with the Buddha's advice in the Anguttara Nikaya, II:282, he also considered moderation in spending and moderation in saving to be good (//apa vyayata apa bhadata//). Treating people properly (//samya pratipati//), he suggested, was much more important than performing ceremonies that were supposed to bring good luck. Because it helped promote tolerance and mutual respect, Asoka desired that people should be well-learned (//bahu sruta//) in the good doctrines (//kalanagama//) of other people's religions. The qualities of heart that are recommended by Asoka in the edicts indicate his deep spirituality. They include kindness (//daya//), self-examination (//palikhaya//), truthfulness (//sace//), gratitude (//katamnata//), purity of heart (//bhava sudhi//), enthusiasm (//usahena//), strong loyalty (//dadha bhatita//), self-control (//sayame//) and love of the Dhamma (//Dhamma kamata//). 

NDPS cases of Nav Kumar Ojha, Shankar Yadav, Pritam Lakda listed for hearing on March 30

Nav Kumar Ojha's NDPS convicted case has been listed for hearing on March 30 in High Court along with the related case of Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakda. The 2-page long order dated March 24, 2026 in Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakra vs. The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotices Control Bureau, Bihar (2026) by Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava reads:"This Court has been informed that one of the convicts from the same trial namely, Nav Kumar Ojha has filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1014 of 2025 which is pending before this Bench. 2. It is submitted that since the said Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1014 of 2025 arises out of the same impugned judgment and order, it would be appropriate to hear the present appeal together with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1014 of 2025. 3. We agree with the submissions. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent is present. 5. List this matter together with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1014 of 2025 under the heading for hearing immediately after Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1014 of 2025 is admitted. 6. The said appeal is likely to be listed under appropriate heading on 30.03.2026. Let this case be tagged with the said appeal and listed simultaneously with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1014 of 2025 under appropriate heading." Notably, the seller of the Ganja have not been prosecuted and the buyer of the Ganja has been acquitted. The State has not challenged the acquittal.    

In Nav Kumar Ojha vs. The Union of India (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava had passed an order dated March 13, 2026, wherein it sent a reminder to the trial court, Bhojpur to send the corrected copy of the impugned judgment to the High Court within one week. 

The order reads: "If the corrected copy is not received within the given period,  the record shall be placed before the learned Registrar General who will call upon the learned Principal District Judge, Bhojpur and ensure compliance with the order....4. List this matter on 30.03.2026 under appropriate heading." This  order was passed upon hearing Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel for the appellant who pointed out that the Court's previous order for rectifying the error in the trail court's order, has not been complied with as yet. The order by the trial court was authored by Birendra Kumar Choubey as Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS, Bhojpur.

At present, the High Court's website shows that a letter in this regard was sent on March 11, 2026 to District and Additional Session Judge VIII  and it was received on March  17, 2026. This is recorded on the case status page of the website. 

The appellant is in custody since February 2021 in connection with N.D.P.S Case No.6/2021, arising out of N.C.B. Case No. NCB/PZU/V/01/2021 dated 02.02.2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (C) and 25 NDPS Act. According to prosecution case, altogether 909.2 Kg ganja has been recovered from the truck in question, in which the petitioner along with other person was sitting, which was to be delivered to one Bijendra Kumar Ray. The fact is that the appellant was not on the truck in question. It is crystal clear from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing incriminating was recovered from his conscious possession. He was arrested and convicted on the basis of a confession of Shankar Yadav, the truck driver and Pritam Lakda, the helper made to the officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). In their confession in police custody it was stated that the appellant had escorted the truck by his Mahindra Scorpio till Aurangabad after that he had left for Chapra. The appellant has been exonerated from charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act by the trial court.   

The related case Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakda vs. Union of India is listed for hearing on March 23, 2026 before the same Division Bench. The trial court, Bhojpur had convicted Shankar Yadav (truck driver), Pritam Lakda (khalasi-helper) and Nav Kumar Ojha (truck owner) by its judgement and order dated May 9, 2023 and May 17, 2023. But had acquitted Birendar Kumar Ray, the recipient/buyer of the Ganja in question. It is significant that No case was pursued against the seller of the Ganja in question. Notably, the state did not file its appeal against the acquittal of Ray. The prosecution has failed to explain the chain of custody of the Ganja in question. In its 84-page long judgement by Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur with reference to four persons namely, 1) Bijendra Kumar Rai (Bihar), Nav Kumar Ojha (Jharkhand), Shankar Yadav  (Jharkhand) and Pritam Lakda (Jharkhand), all the four accused were acquitted of conspiracy charges (Section 29 of  Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985) by the trial court. But Bijendra Kumar Ray (Bihar), the kingpin was given the benefit of doubt, and acquitted by the trial court, and the remaining three-truck owner, driver and khalasi were convicted.

The last order dated May 9, 2024 in this case by High Court's Division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar recorded that the Advocates for Shankar Yadav, Pritam Lakra and Nav Kumar Ojha, the Appellants submitted that "the informant is the Investigator of this case which vitiates the entire  prosecution case. It has further been submitted that none of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act has been complied with." The argument was submitted by Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel for the second appellant. The High Court's order reads: "We have also been informed that the wife of another co-convict is mentally ill and, therefore, no appeal has been preferred on his behalf as yet. Apart from this, this Court has been informed that the main accused of this case has been acquitted on a specious plea which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Though, taking into account the quantity of narcotics recovered from a vehicle of which the appellants are driver and cleaner respectively, we are not inclined to suspend their sentence presently. The prayer is rejected. However, we direct the registry to prepare the paper book urgently and get this case listed for final hearing in the second week of August commencing from 5th of August, 2024. We have said so for the reason that one of the co-convicts has still not preferred an appeal and the appellant No. 2 is a tribal student who is barely in his teens." 

Pritam Lakda, the second appellant, a resident of Jharkhand is in Buxer jail. Shankar Yadav, the first appellant is in Ara jail and is represented by Advocate Ravindra Kumar. Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna  represents the second appellant. He also represents Nav Kumar Ojha, the third convict. The third convict, a resident of Jharkhand is in Buxer jail as well.

Section 20 of the NDPS Act deals with punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plants and cannabis. It states that "Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable..."  Section 20 (ii) b of the NDPS Act states that where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Section 20 (ii) (C) states that where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b), and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

 

The judgement of the the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur reveals that Pritam Lakra, khalasi (helper) of the truck is not covered under the ambit of Section 20 (ii) (b) (C) of the NDPS Act because there is nothing on record to show that he is a cultivator of any cannabis plant or producer, manufacturer, possessor, seller, purchaser, transporter, inter-State importer, inter-State exporter or user of cannabis. It is apparent that the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur committed an error in convicting him under Section 20 (ii) (b) (C) of the NDPS Act after exonerating him of charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

As to Section 25 of NDPS Act which deals with the punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence, it states that "Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence." It is apparent that Pritam Lakda, the khalasi (helper) does not fall within the ambit of Section 25. 

Also read: Patna High Court detects error in sentencing order by Birendra Kumar Choubey as Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS, asks trial court to rectify its defect within one week