Justice Alok Kumar sets aside order by Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna in an Arms Appeal

In Md. Yasin Khan vs. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Patna & Ors. (2026), Justice Alok Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 7-page long judgment dated September 10, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"9. A perusal of the order dated 05.10.2023, makes it clear that the order was passed without giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, such order violates the fundamental principle of natural justice (Audi-alteram-partem) and is liable to be set aside or quashed. 10. As such, the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna in Arms Appeal No. 17 of 2018 is accordingly set aside, and the said appeal is restored to its original number and file before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, who shall dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Respondents, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."

The other five respondents were: 2. The District Magistrate, Patna, 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, 4. The Additional District Magistrate (Arms), Patna, 5. The District Arms Magistrate, Patna and 6. The Officer-in-Charge-cum- S.H.O., Pirbahore Police Station, Patna.

The petitioner had prayed for the setting aside the Impugned Order dated October 5, 2023 passed by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna passed in Arms Appeal No. 17 of 2018 whereby the Arms Appeal filed against the Order dated July 14, 2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna wherein the prayer of Petitioner for the grant the arms license was rejected in mechanical and arbitrary manner. He had also sought issuance of writ or writs in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated July 14, 2017 passed under in a Arms Case by the District Magistrate, Patna whereby the prayer of grant of arms license was rejected without having any cogent reason on flimsy ground. The petitioner had also prayed for issuance of writ or writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent District Magistrate to grant arms license to the Petitioner who is having no disqualification for grant of license and is entitled to the license as provided under law.

The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner, who is the Secretary of Millat Committee, Golakpur Kabristan (Waqf Estate No. 2153), Mahendru, Patna, and who was engaged in removal of encroachment over the said Waqf property, was allegedly attacked by criminals, giving rise to Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 291 of 2014 under Sections 341/323/307 I.P.C. On account of the resultant threat perception, the petitioner applied on November 21, 2014 before the District Magistrate, Patna for grant of an N.P. Bore Revolver/Pistol licence. When the application remained undecided, the petitioner approached the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5922 of 2016, which was disposed of with a direction to the licensing authority to take a final decision within three months. On account of continued inaction, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Case (M.J.C. No. 358 of 2017), pursuant to which the District Magistrate, Patna passed the order dated July 14, 2017 rejecting the application. The said order, according to the petitioner, was never communicated to him and came to his knowledge only during the contempt proceeding. The petitioner thereafter had preferred Arms Appeal No. 17 of 2018 before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, which was dismissed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted that the order dated July 14, 2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna is wholly mechanical and unsustainable, inasmuch as it overlooks the recommendation of the Officer-in-Charge, Pirbahore P.S., certifying the petitioner's good moral character and favourably recommending grant of licence, and proceed merely on assumption and presumption without any cogent material, in violation of the mandate of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, and further that the said order came to be passed only to shield the licensing authority from the pending contempt proceeding, and not upon an independent application of mind to the continuing threat perception disclosed by the two First Information Reports lodged by the petitioner.

The counsel for the State submitted that the licensing authority, in exercise of its statutory discretion under Sections 13(3)(b) and 14(1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 formed the opinion that grant of licence was more for projecting influence in the petitioner's land-dealing business than for protection of life, and was accordingly liable to affect public peace and safety.

The counsel for the State also submitted that the appellate order dated October 5, 2023 does not suffer from any illegality, as the record discloses that the petitioner was afforded due notice and opportunity but remained absent on as many as three occasions, namely November 20, 2018, April 26, 2022 and August 1, 2023, before the Divisional Commissioner, and it was only after affording such repeated opportunities that Arms Appeal No. 17 of 2018 came to be dismissed and the order of the District Magistrate dated July 14, 2017 affirmed, and that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

Justice Kumar observed:"....it is well settled that while citizens have no fundamental right to bear arms, and the grant, refusal or renewal of an arms licence remains a statutorily regulated privilege under the Arms Act, 1959, the exercise of that discretion by the licensing and appellate authorities is not unfettered. Orders under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act must reflect due application of mind to the material on record, including police verification and recommendation reports, and cannot rest on vague apprehension, assumption or presumption. Further, it is well settled that adherence to the principle of natural justice is the very soul of the administration of justice. The universal excuse that these proceedings are summary proceedings and repeated opportunities cannot be given renders the order bad in law; it violates natural justice, resulting in arbitrariness and the denial of a fair opportunity to be heard."

Supreme Court sets aside order by Patna High Court in a case Section 406, 420 of IPC from Buxar

In Dr. Keshar Naman Kumar Pandey @Keshar Naman Kumar Pandey@Kesh Nayan Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu passed a 5-page long order dated September 10, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "5. The allegation against the appellant is that he collected money in lieu of assurance to arrange a job for the complainant and, thereafter, has been absconding. 6. It is admitted by the respondent-State of Bihar that investigation has already been completed, whereafter the chargesheet has been filed on 25th December, 2025. Since the investigation stood completed prior to passing of our earlier order dated 13th April, 2026, the appellant was not called upon to join investigation. This is what appears from paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. 7. In such view of the matter, we are, thus, of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not necessary and that there is sufficient ground for the appellant to be admitted to an order for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest. 8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order stands set aside." The opposite party no. 2 is Bir Bahadur Singh, a resident of Dhansoi, Buxar.

Earlier, in a 2-page long order dated March 10, 2026, Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had concluded:"6. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed." Supreme Court has set aside the order by Justice Kumar. 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in connection with Dhansoi P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024 instituted under Sections 420, 406 of the I.P.C. As per the prosecution case, petitioner is alleged to have cheated informant and six persons an amount of Rs. 13,18,500/- in the name of providing jobs. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had not cheated anyone. He had clean
antecedent. APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Justice Kumar had directed teh petitioner to surrender within four weeks from the date of the order and pray for regular bail, failing which the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda was directed to take all steps for arrest of the petitioner. 

Supreme Court observed that since the investigation is yet to conclude, "we direct that if the investigating officer calls upon the appellant to join the investigation, he shall do so by attending the police station. 13. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case." 

Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh denied anticipatory bail in an excise case

In Anil Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order dated June 24, 026, wherein, he concluded: ""Considering the fact that petitioner is owner of the poultry farm from which huge quantity of illicit liquor was recovered, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act 2022. As per prosecution case, 1987.815 liters of illicit liquor was recovered from the poultry farm of petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that no incriminating material was recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. He was not concerned with the alleged recovery and he had been made accused in the case only on suspicion. A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that huge quantity of liquor was recovered from poultry farm of this petitioner.

CS Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd. debarred for a period of 3 years:Patna High Court

CS Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd., a Gurgaon based company has been debarred for a period of three years by the Patna High Court. A letter dated August 18, 2026 has been issued under the signature of Rupesh Deo, Registrar General, the Patna High Court. 

The letter reads: "I am directed to inform you that your reply vide letter dated 06.06.2026 submitted in response to the show cause notice issued to you vide Court's Letter No. 51421/File No. VIII- 16-2024/R&A dated 26.05.2026 has been found unsatisfactory by the Hon'ble Court. It is to further inform you that upon a comprehensive review of the entire recruitment process for 'Regular Mazdoor Recruitment Examination, 2025' and your aforesaid reply submitted in response to the show cause notice issued to you, the Hon'ble Court have been pleased to debar your agency from participating in any tender, contract, or recruitment process conducted by or on behalf of this Court for a period of three years w.e.f. 18.08.2026. Moreover, the agreement with your agency stands terminated w.e.f. 18.08.2026."

Justice Harish Kumar directs Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar to comply with Clause 4(C) (i) of Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011

In Santosh Kumar & Ors. vs. The of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 7-page long judgement dated September 7, 2026 concluded:"6. Having considered the facts narrated in the writ petition as well as the position in law crystalized by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, this Court deems it apt and proper to dispose off the present writ petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file separate representations, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 7. In case, such representation is/are filed before the respondent no. 2, he shall take up the same and bring to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of further eight weeks, keeping in mind the observations and the discussions made hereinabove, as also the Bihar State Litigation Policy, specially Rule 4(C)(1) thereof. 8. It is made clear that if the claim of the petitioners find identical to those who have been accorded the relief as prayed for in the writ petition, the identical relief must be accorded to the petitioners."

A batch of sixty writ petitioners had approached the High Court seeking a direction upon the respondents, especially the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar to grant the benefit with regard to trained scale with effect from the date of completion of training course strictly in terms of 10-page long judgment dated February 1, 2021 passed by Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh of the  High Court in Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 7938 of 2020, which stood affirmed and upheld up to the Supreme Court. 

The petitioners had also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, the Respondent no.2 to act in terms of Clause 4(C) (i) of Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 that if an employee’s claim is covered by an existing Court judgment, the relevant Government Department must settle the claim internally. 

Justice Singh had concluded: "13. The Court was contemplating imposition of cost noticing palpably arbitrary action of the State respondents which generated unnecessary litigation. Instead of imposing cost it has been considered apt to issue a note of caution for the Respondents to be fair and reasonable in future in such matters, particularly when the matters relate to implementation of Court’s orders. It is, however, directed in the facts and circumstances that let the respondents ensure that their actions may not generate unnecessary further litigation and this Court’s orders are uniformly applied in respect of similarly situated employees, as is expected of a model employer." 

Notably in Manoj Kumar's case the petitioners had relied on the 4-page long order dated August 9, 2019 by Justice (Dr.) Anil Kumar Upadhyay of the Patna High Court passed in Kishor Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 16165 of 2019). Justice Singh's judgment drew heavily on this judgement with approval. The order in Kishor Kumar's case drew on the decisions in All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City: AIR 1954 Bom. 232 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar: AIR 1989 SC 1133.  

The petitioners were initially appointed either as Panchayat Teacher or Prakhand Teacher in terms of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 in the different districts and subsequently they were sent for Teachers Training. Subsequently, the petitioners were admitted in in service Diploma in Elementary Education for the Sessions 2015-17 and 2016-2018. Despite their training having been completed much earlier, but the examination was conducted in October-November, 2018 and the result was published on January 19, 2019. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were also entitled to get the grade pay/trained pay scale from the date of completion of training in terms with the decision of the High Court passed in Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 7938 of 2020. 

Drawing on decision, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners was fully covered with the order of the High Court against which the State preferred L.P.A. No. 456 of 2021 which was dismissed by the order dated April 3, 2025 as well as by a 1-page long order dated January 2026 in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 66035/2025, however, both the appeals stood dismissed and the order of the High Court got affirmed.  

Supreme Court stays all further proceedings in the FIR against Kamal Nayan Pandey, SHO, Murar, Buxar in a case of police atrocity

In Kamal Nayan Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Parale passed a 2-page long order dated September 7, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"In the meantime, there shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 and on all further proceedings pursuant to the FIR No.5793027260052 of 2026 dated 03.07.2026, registered at Police Station Murar, District-Buxar, Bihar." The impugned order was passed by Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court. It was in compliance with the High Court's order that the FIR was registered on dated July 3, 2026 under Sections 115(2), 126 (2), 117(2),352,351 (2), 303 (2),3(5) of BNS, 2023 in a case of police brutality at 2 PM on July 4, 2024. Ram Ishwar Kumar is the Investigator of the case. Supreme Court did not inquire about the findings of the investigation undertaken during July 3, 2026-September 6, 2026. 

The complaint dated July 3, 2026 was filed by Manish Kumar, the victim of police atrocity. (Photo:The content of the complaint application filed by the victim)

Supreme granted permission to Kamal Nayan Pandey to file the SLP. The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner was not heard before the Patna High Court, the mandate of compliance with Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was waived off. It was also submitted that the contesting respondent had suppressed the factum of a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission which was dismissed.  It issued notice, returnable on October 12, 2026. The counsel appearing for the respondent accepted the notice. 

Earlier, in Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Director General of Police, Bihar (2026), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court had passed a 5-page long order dated June 16, 2026 in a case of police brutality Kamal Nayan Pandey. The other six respondents were: Home Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, 3. The District Magistrate, Ara, 4. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar, 5. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara, 6. The Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar and 7. The Station House Officer, Muffassil Police Station, Ara. 

Also read: FIR lodged against Kamal Nayan Pandey, SHO, Murar, Buxar registered in compliance with order by Patna High Court in a case of police brutality

 

 

FIR lodged against Kamal Nayan Pandey, SHO, Murar, Buxar registered in compliance with order by Patna High Court in a case of police brutality

In Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Director General of Police, Bihar (2026), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court had passed a 5-page long order dated June 16, 2026, wherein, he concluded:" "5. Be as it is, as per the allegation, prima facie case of cognizable offence is clearly made out against Kamal Nayan Pandey, who was the then Officer in-Charge of Murar Police Station, Buxar, Ara. The Court, at this Stage, is required not to look into the veracity of the allegation but to see to it that as per the allegation, prima facie cognizable offence is made out, warranting registration of FIR against the accused, and it is needless to say that as per the allegation, there is clearly commission of serious cognizable offence by the accused. 6. Moreover, for prosecution of the accused, who happened to be a police officer, does not require even sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC/ 218 B.N.S.S. because such brutal act on the part of the police officer against a poor man is not a part of his official duty. 7. It is shocking and disturbing that the cry of the victim for lodging of FIR before the concerned police officers, including the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, went unheard by the officers despite their duty to do the needful to prosecute the accused, even if the accused happened to be an officer. It is trite to say that ours is a constitutional democracy based on rule of law. Howsoever high one may be, the law is above all. There is also equality before law and equal protection of law of everybody, howsoever poor he may be." 

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

The High Court's order reads: "9. Hence, the Station House Officer, Murar Buxar is directed to lodge FIR against Kamal Nayan Pandey, the then Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar. 10. The Director General of Police, Bihar is directed to take compliance report from the Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar, Ara regarding lodging of the FIR and entrust the investigation to the Crime Investigation Department because this case is lodged against a police officer. 11. In case, the Petitioner is not satisfied by the investigation of the C.I.D. also, then he would be at liberty to file a further writ petition before this Court seeking appointment of C.B.I. to investigate into the matter, because this matter relates to protection of the fundamental right of the people and brutality committed by the police officer. If such conduct is not controlled and checked, the whole rule of law and constitutional protection of life and liberty of the citizen of the country would go to wind and the national police may become like one of Nazi Germany. 12. The present writ petition is allowed, accordingly. 13. The D.G.P., Bihar is also directed to send a compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court to be put up on record within thirty days." The 30-day period expired on July 16, 2026. In compliance with the High Court's order FIR No. 5793027260052 dated July 3, 2026 under Sections 115(2), 126 (2), 117(2),352,351 (2), 303 (2),3(5) of BNS, 2023 in a case of police brutality at 2 PM on July 4, 2024. Ram Ishwar Kumar has been appointed as the Investigator of the case. The complaint dated July 3, 2026 filed by Manish Kumar, the petitioner is as under:    

सेवा में,

थानाध्यक्ष
थाना मुरार
बक्सर
विषय - प्राथमिकी दर्ज करने के संबंध में |
महाशय, सविनय निवेदन इस प्रकार है कि मनीष कुमार पिता शिव शंकर यादव ग्राम एवं पोस्ट - गंगहर थाना- आरा मुफस्सिल जिला भोजपुर का निवासी हूँ। मैं दिनांक 04.07.24 को जो जमीन के कागजात लेकर ऑनलाइन करने अपने दोस्त के दुकान पर ग्राम चौगाई गया था तभी मैं दिन में 2:00 बजे के करीव दुकान से  शौच करने के लिए जा रहा था तब मुरार थाना जो जिला बक्सर में आता है वहां की पुलिस गाड़ी लेकर आई  जिसमें मुरार थाना जो जिला बक्सर में आता है वहां के पुलिस गाड़ी लेकर आई जिसमें मुरार थाना के तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय एवं अन्य सिपाही मौजूद थे उन्होंने मुझे बुलाया तो मैं उन लोगों को बुलाने पर गया जाने के बाद उनलोगों के द्वारा मुझसे पूछताछ किए जाने लगा हम जिस काम के लिए गए थे वही भी मैंने बताया फिर मुझे मेरा नाम पूछा गया जैसे कि मैं अपना नाम मनीष कुमार यादव बताया तो तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय कहने लगी है कि ये अहिर जाति का है और गालियां देने लगे मुझे बेरहमी से लाठी डंडे से उनके द्वारा बहुत मारा गया जिसमें मैं घायल हो गया | वह डंडे से मुझे मार कर मेरा पैर तोड़ दिया जिसमें मैं अधमरा सा हो गया तब मैंने अपने दोस्त के पास फोन करके बुलाया लेकिन उन लोगों ने मुझे मिलने नहीं दिया-तथा मुझे पुलिस के गाड़ी में बैठ कर वसंतपुर गांव में लेकर गए और ग्रामीण लोगों से पूछने लगे कि यह लड़का यही का है जब गांव वाले ने बताया कि यहां का नहीं है तब मुझे प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य केंद्र चौड़ाई में ले जाकर इलाज काराये वहां मैंने देखा कि तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय अपने हाथों को छिलकर दवा लगवाने लगे और अस्पताल में लिखवाने लगे कि यह भाग रहा था तब मैं डॉक्टर को बोला कि हम भाग नहीं रहे थे उनके बाद डॉक्टर ने बक्सर सदर अस्पताल में रेफर कर दिया गया रास्ते में एंबुलेंस को रोककर बातचीत आपस में करने लगे पुलिस द्वारा मुझे एंबुलेंस में बैठ कर सदर अस्पताल वक्सर ले जाया गया तथा वहां पर मेरा इलाज एवं पैर का एक्स-रे हुआ जिसकी प्रति इस आवेदन के साथ संलग्न है जहां डॉक्टर ने मुझसे पूछा कि यह कैसे हुआ तो मैंने बताया कि मुरार थाना के तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष ने मार कर मेरा पैर तोड़ दिया है तब तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष वहां मौजूद थे इस डॉक्टर एवं तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष के बीच मुझे लेकर बहस होने लगा तब सदर अस्पताल बक्सर के डॉक्टर द्वारा पटना रेफर किया गया तब मुझे तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय के द्वारा धमकाया किया अगर तुमने मुझ पर FIR किया तो तुम्हारे साथ-साथ तुम्हारे पिता का नौकरी खत्म कर दूंगा मेरे पिता जो आरा मुफ्फसिल थथाना में चौकीदार के पद पर कार्यरत है तथा पुलिस मुझे अस्पताल में ही छोड़ कर वहां से भाग गए किंतु मैं पुलिस कि डर से पटना नहीं जा पाया क्योंकि पुलिस सुलह कराने के लिए मेरा पीछा कर रहा था किसी तरह मैंने अपने निजी शहर आरा में ही डॉक्टर से अपना इलाज करवाए साथ में ही मेरा मोबाइल पर एवं पर्स में रखे कुछ कागजात एवं छ: हजार रुपया अभी तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय के पास हैं. अतः श्रीमान से प्रार्थना की उक्त तथ्यों को ध्यान में रखते हुए दोपियों पर एफआईआर दर्ज करने की कृपा करें. ताकि मुझे न्याय प्राप्त हो सके. आपका विश्वासी मनीष कुमार, पिता शिव शंकर यादव, ग्राम एवं पोस्ट - गंगहर, थाना-आरा मुफ्फसिल, जिला - भोजपुर (विहार), पिन कोड 802312

The other six respondents were: Home Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, 3. The District Magistrate, Ara, 4. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar, 5. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara, 6. The Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar and 7. The Station House Officer, Muffassil Police Station, Ara. 

The writ petition was preferred by Manish Kumar, the Petitioner seeking lodging of FIR against the Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar, pleading that despite the written report given by the Petitioner to the concerned Officer In-Charge, of the Police Station, and the Superintendent of Police, as well as the District Magistrate, FIR was not lodged by the concerned police station. As per the allegation, the Petitioner was brutally assaulted by the Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar breaking his both legs without any rhyme and reason, only on account of the Petitioner belonging to a particular caste. As per the written report submitted by the Petitioner to the concerned police officer, the Petitioner had gone to the stall of his friend situated in the village Chaugaya on 04.07.2024 for online uploading of title documents in regard to his land. At 2:00 PM. When the Petitioner was going to answer the call of nature, the vehicle of Murar police station came, wherein, the Station House Officer, Murar Police Station and other constables were present. The Station House Officer called him and enquired about him and when he came to know that he belongs to a particular caste, he started abusing him in filthy language and assaulting him with his danda breaking his both legs. 

The High Court has recorded that the X-Ray report of the broken legs of the Petitioner was annexed with this writ petition, which clearly showed that the Petitioner suffered at the brutal hands of the accused, who happened to be a police officer, who is supposed to be a protector of the life and liberty of a citizen. 

The High Court has recorded: "4. Counter affidavit on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Buxar has been filed, as per which, the breaking of legs of the Petitioenr is admitted. The defense put forward by the police is that the police has not beaten the Petitioner. The Petitioner had in fact, slipped on account of rainy weather resulting into breaking of his legs. However, the breaking of the legs of the Petitioner, as is visible in the X-Ray Report, does not persuade this Court to accept the explanation given by the police, nor can one believe that a poor man who does not gather courage to lodge FIR even against his co-citizen can dare to lodge false report against a police officer."