Justice Sandeep Kumar sets aside orders by Collectors of Rohtas, Bhojpur, directs them to pass speaking order after considering fresh sand replenishment study reports

In Bimal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 29-page long judgement dated April 16, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"....the  impugned orders contained in memo no.758 dated 11.05.2024 passed by the Collector, Rohtas and memo no.1919 dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collectors of Bhojpur and Rohtas districts for passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after considering the fresh replenishment study reports, which would be conducted in compliance of the aforesaid directions, for the respective sand ghats. 47. The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent." Both the cases demonstrate the poor environmental health of the Sone river in Bhojpur and Rohtas. 

Justice Kumar relied on High Court's decision in Manjeet Chawla vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 535 has already held that replenishment study is sine qua non for sand mining projects.

Justice Kumar observed: "43. The mining over river beds cannot be permitted contrary to the replenishment rate of sand and that a replenishment study must be undertaken since it forms the very basis on which the quantity of permissible mining is determined and subsequently the environmental clearance is granted. This Court has noted that under Clause-5 of the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, the need for replenishment study is paramount in order to nullify the adverse impact arising due to excessive and aggressive sand extraction. Thus, the replenishment study is not merely to ascertain the permissible quantity of sand for extraction but also is necessary to minimize the adverse impact therefrom and strike a balance between sand extraction / mining and preservation of riparian habitat. 44. It is equally settled that the State holds all natural resources including the minerals as a trustee of the public and must deal with them in a manner consistent with the nature of such a trust. What is clearly crystallized, therefore, is that the annual extractable quantity must be less than the annual replenishment rate in order to align strictly with sustainable mining practices."

The judgement reads:"45. For the foregoing reasons, in order to strike a fair balance and keeping in view the sustainable mining practice, this Court deems it appropriate and in the interest of justice to direct the concerned respondent authorities to conduct a fresh replenishment study for the Rohtas Sand Ghat No.13 and Bhojpur Sand Ghat No. 01 by a competent authority / institution to ascertain the present and true quantity of sand available in the sand ghats and its replenishment rate, which have been allotted to the petitioners. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within eight weeks from today. The cost of the aforesaid replenishment studies shall be borne by the petitioners themselves.

The four other respondents were:Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram and Mineral Development Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. The case was heard along with Nagendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar & Ors. The four other respondents were: Principal Secretary, Cum Commissioner Mines, Department of Bihar, Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Bhojpur and Mineral Development Officer, Bhojpur. 

The petitioners had challenged the orders passed by the respective District Magistrate-cum-Collector, by which the security deposit of the petitioners for settlement of sand ghats have been forfeited under Rule 28(1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 and the in-principal work orders have been revoked on the ground that the petitioners have not deposited their respective first installment of the royalty.

Notably, in-principle work orders were issued in favour of the petitioners by the concerned authorities and both the petitioners submitted the required mining plans, which were approved by the competent authority.
After approval of the Mining Plans, both petitioners approached the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for issuance of Terms of Reference and further environmental clearance, which were granted to them. 

The petitioners had submitted that since the mineral potential of the sand ghats had reduced considerably
considering the fact that there was no replenishment of sand during the monsoon season of the year 2023, the petitioners were reluctant to commence mining operations at their respective sand ghats, as according to the petitioners, the same would have caused heavy financial losses to the petitioners. After the monsoon season of 2023, there was no sufficient replenishment of sand, resulting in substantial reduction in the mineral potential of the respective sand ghats. Further, no replenishment study was conducted after the monsoon season of 2023, although such exercise is mandatory under the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM, 2020), particularly for assessing actual replenishment and sustainable extraction. 

The petitioner - Nagendra Kumar, upon learning about the reduced availability of sand, addressed a representation dated September 22, 2023 to the Member Secretary, SEAC, requesting that the environmental clearance be granted only after physical verification of the sand ghat but despite the aforesaid representation, the environmental clearance was granted to the petitioners without proper consideration of the issue of non-replenishment and reduced mineral potential.

The petitioners submitted that at the time of participating in the auction, they had inspected the respective
sand ghats and found sufficient sand availability but the depletion in mineral potential occurred only thereafter, during the period which was consumed in obtaining approvals and clearances and such depletion may have occurred due to lack of replenishment during monsoon and/or illegal or excessive mining by prior operators or third parties. It was the case of the petitioners that they, under pressure, from the mining authorities proceeded further and applied for Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from Bihar State Pollution Control Board. The petitioners did not commence mining operations even after obtaining necessary permissions since their consistent stand was that the actual mineral potential had been seriously reduced due to absence of post-monsoon replenishment. Further, the petitioners received several letters from the respondent authorities for making the payment of first installment in lieu of mining lease granted in their favour but they did not pay the required payment and ultimately, vide impugned orders the security deposits of the petitioners have been forfeited by the respondents under Rule 28(1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the first installment of royalty and had not commenced operation of the sand ghats.

The petitioners submitted that the impugned orders forfeiting the security deposits of the petitioners were illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law in view of the fact that there had been no adequate replenishment of sand after monsoon 2023 and no fresh replenishment study of the respective sand ghats had been conducted in terms of the guidelines of the E.M.G.S.M., 2020. He further submits that the actual mineral potential of the respective sand ghats had materially reduced after the auction and before the petitioners could even commence the operation of mining on the sand ghats. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had already undertaken all required compliance and were not responsible for the depletion of the availability of sand in the sand ghats.The petitioners were proceeded against merely on the allegation that they did not deposit the first installment of royalty/settlement amount and did not commence operation of the respective sand ghats. On this ground alone, the respondents invoked Rule 28(1) of the 2019 Rules, along with certain clauses of the tender document, and proceeded to forfeit the security deposits of the petitioners.

It was also submitted that Rule 28(1) of the 2019 Rules will not apply in the present case since the said provision forms part of Chapter IV of the Rules, which governs the procedure for grant of mining lease ‘except sand’. Sand settlement, on the other hand, is specifically governed by Chapter V, namely Rules 29A to 30, which constitutes a distinct and self-contained Code in relation to the settlement, operation and obligations pertaining to sand ghats. Once the Rules themselves maintain this legislative distinction, the respondents could not have lawfully borrowed Rule 28(1) from a different chapter and applied it to sand settlees.The action of the respondents in forfeiting the security deposits of the petitioners cannot be justified unless there exists a clear and specific statutory authority. Further, the respondents could not have compelled the petitioners to proceed with the settlement and commence mining operations without first resolving the foundational issue of actual mineral availability in the concerned sand ghats. It is the contention of the petitioners that the actual mineral potential of the respective sand ghats materially changed after the auction and before the commencement of operation, and yet the respondents proceeded
as though the originally assumed reserve of sand remained intact. It is argued that such conduct is arbitrary and reflects complete non-application of mind and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that no post-monsoonal replenishment study for the year 2023 was conducted in respect of the concerned sand ghats, though such study is integral to the sustainable sand mining practice. The EMGSM, 2020 expressly recognises replenishment assessment as an essential component of sustainable sand mining. The purpose of such study is to ascertain the quantity replenished after monsoon, determine actual mineable quantity, prevent ecological over-exploitation, and regulate extraction on a scientific basis. In the absence of such a study, the respondents could not have lawfully presumed that the original mineral potential remained unchanged.

It was submitted that the petitioners had specifically requested the authority that environmental clearance be granted only after physical verification of the sand ghats since the mineral availability had materially reduced, which clearly shows that the issue of non-availability of sand in the sand ghats has been raised at the initial stage. It was also submitted that though the petitioner - Bimal Kumar could not furnish separate detailed replies to each departmental communications during the relevant period, as he was unwell, such circumstance cannot defeat the petitioners’ substantive case.

The petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India, reported as (2015) 7 SCC 728, to contend that judicial review remains available where State action in the contractual field is arbitrary, unfair, unsupported by law, or violative of public law
obligations.

It was argued that a replenishment study conducted in the year 2022 cannot conclusively determine the actual mineral availability after subsequent extraction. A full monsoon cycle and the admitted absence of any updated replenishment study for the year 2023 also cast doubt on the earlier replenishment study conducted in the year 2022. It was also argued that once the petitioners raised grievance regarding non-availability of sand, the respondent authorities ought to have conducted a replenishment study to ascertain the actual availability of sand and its replenishment rate.

Justice Kumar observed:"....it is required to be noted that it is settled that the mining activities cannot be permitted beyond the annual replenishment rate since that would endanger the environment and if the geological processes that naturally replenish the availability of sand cannot match the rate at which the mining occurs then over the period of time aggressive and continued mining activity would result in long term environmental damage. Therefore, sustainable development is sine qua non to strike a balance between developmental activities and the conservation of environment."

The Court's order is pro-environment but it missed the opportunity of directing all the Collectors to ensure sand replenishment study of all the ghats in the State.    

Justice Sourendra Pandey directs the State to examine representation on release of petitioner’s land, declared surplus land in Ceiling Case of 1973-1974 without any notice

In Rajendra Mandal @ Rejendra Mandar S/o Late Nanulal Mandal @ Late Nanu Mandar vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Revenue, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Sourendra Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 4-page long judgment dated April 15, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the earlier order passed by this Court in aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2002 & analogous cases, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3), detailing his grievances, within a period of four weeks from today, who, on receipt of such representation, after taking into account the fact that the petitioner had purchased the property way-back in the year 1977 from the land-holder whose land has subsequently been declared to be surplus and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the original land-holder/legal heirs or legal representatives of the land in question apart from the other relevant parties including the petitioner, shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of four months of the receipt of such representation.7. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be tenable, necessary sequel order shall also be passed by the concerned respondent/authority within the aforesaid period. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of."

The four other respondents were: District Magistrate cum Collector, Darbhanga, Additional Collector Ceiling, Darbhanga, Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga and Circle Officer, Biraul, Darbhanga.

The writ application was  filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner’s land, which has been declared surplus land by Ceiling Case No. 69 of 1973-1974 illegally without any notice upon him and without proper enquiry under Section 5(i) (ii) by avoiding Section 9(2) of the Ceiling Act.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his grievances shall be redressed if the present writ application be disposed of with a direction to the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3) in terms of the order passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2002 and analogous cases, disposed of on April 21, 2005. He submitted that he is then purchaser of the land in question, which was  declared to be surplus by the authorities concerned. It was submitted that the case of the petitioner was exactly similar to the case of one Yamun Mandal & Ors., which was also the subject matter in the batch of writ petitions, i.e., C.W.J.C. Nos. 768 of 2003.

The standing counsel submitted that the petitioner, being the purchaser, cannot be given the opportunity of being heard at such a belated stage and passage of time upon the disposal of the writ application. It was submitted that the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3) can look into the matter, if the original land-holder from whom the petitioner purchased the said land is heard before passing any order.

Trial Courts "shall record the offer made to the accused" of their right to legal representation, their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel if they cannot afford counsel

Patna High Court's Registrar General issued a circular order no. 01/2026 dated April 15, 2026 on the subject of 5-page long order dated February 5, 2026 passed by the Supreme Court's Division Bench Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran in Reginamary Chellamani vs. State Rep by Superintendent of Customs) SLP (Crl.) No. 18886/2025. 

The Court observed as follows: "It is incumbent upon the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings, faced with such situations, to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The trial Courts shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard, the response of the accused to such offer and also the action taken thereupon in their orders, before commencing examination of the witnesses. This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously. This order shall be communicated to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to enable suitable instructions being issued in this regard to all the concerned trial Courts within the State." The case arose from the order dated July 24, 2025 by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar of Madras High Court. 

The circular reads: "In order to ensure uniform compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the following instructions, the High Court has issued for strict adherence by all criminal courts in the State: 
1. Informing the Accused of Right to Counsel: Before the commencement of examination of witnesses, the trial court shall inform the accused clearly and specifically that: 

(a) He/ She has a right to be represented by an advocate of his/ her choice, and
(b) If the accused cannot afford to engage a private counsel, he/she is entitled to free legal aid through Legal Services Authorities.
2. Offer of Legal Aid: Where the accused states that he/ she does not have legal representation or is unable to engage counsel, the court shall:
(a) Inform the accused of the availability of free legal aid, and
(b) Take necessary steps to provide legal aid counsel through the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) without delay.
3. Recording in Order Sheet: (i) The Presiding Officer shall specifically record in the order sheet:
(a) That the offer of legal representation/ legal aid was made to the accused.
(b) The response of the accused to such offer.
(c) The action taken by the court in consequence of such response.
(ii) The learned Trial Court, while recording the offer to provide legal representation to the accused shall also take the signature/ LTI of the accused in the margin of the order-sheet.
4. Condition Precedent for Witness Examination: The examination of prosecution witnesses shall not ordinarily commence unless:
(a) The above procedure has been followed, and
(b) The same has been duly recorded in the order sheet.
5. Strict Compliance: All trial courts shall scrupulously follow the above procedure in every criminal trial to safeguard the right to fair trial and effective legal representation. 

The Principal District and Sessions Judges shall circulate these instructions to all criminal courts under their jurisdiction, and ensure strict compliance with directions contained herein."

Notably, the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, was aggrieved by the denial of regular bail by the Madras High Court in relation to the order of the Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act Cases for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Supreme Court had observed:"We, however, find that the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, has been in custody for 4 years 1 month and 28 days as on date. Given the length of incarceration that the appellant has already suffered and as an identically situated accused person, who was travelling along with the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, on the same flight, has been granted bail by this Court, we are inclined to grant the same relief to the appellant at this stage. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2025. The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, is directed to be released on bail in connection with the aforestated NDPS case, on stringent terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court."

The Supreme Court's order reads: "We may also note at this stage that the appellant did not cross examine the witnesses at the initial stage and it was only after she engaged her own counsel and her application for re-examining those witnesses was allowed that she was permitted to do so."

Ram Narayan Yadav challenges election of Nitish Mishra, the MLA from Jhanjharpur, Madhubani

In Ram Narayan Yadav vs. Nitish Mishra & Ors. (2026), Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order upon hearing Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel of the petitioner, wherein, the Court permitted deletion of the respondent no. 2, the Election Commission of India through the Chief Election Commissioner and respondent no. 5, the Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the CEO, Patna. The prayer was made for its deletion in view of the provision under Section 82 (a) of the the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the pre-Constitution law. 

The law was enacted on July 17, 1951 ahead of the upcoming first General Elections during November -December 1951. It was introduced in the Parliament by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the then union law minister. The Act was enacted by the provisional parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution of India, just before the first general election.

Section 82 of Representation of the People Act reads:"Parties to the petition.—A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition—(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.]". 

Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act specifies the persons who are required to be joined as respondents to an election petition. Under this provision the returned candidate is a necessary party as a respondent and where relief for a declaration is claimed that the election petitioner, or any other candidate be duly elected, all the contesting candidates are necessary to be impleaded as respondents to the petition.

But Section 87 of the Act  provides the "Procedure before the High Court.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits...." It is evident that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of an election petition by virtue of section 87 of the Act. Since CPC is applicable, and the Court trying the election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11(a). 

Notably, the Representation of the People Act has been amended 49 times during September 1951-August 2022. The existing provision under Section 82 was substituted by Section 45 of the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, the post-Constitution amendment with effect from August 28, 1956.  

The petitioner's counsel was permitted by the Court to substitute the affidavit because the term of the Oath Commissioner has expired. The case is listed before the court for April 27, 2026. 

The Delimitation Act, 2026 to be introduced in Parliament

The Delimitation Bill 2026 is a bill to provide for the readjustment of the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and Union territories, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State and Union territories having a Legislative Assembly, the division of each State and each Union territory having a Legislative Assembly into territorial constituencies for elections to the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies of the States and Union territories and for matters connected therewith.

Justice Sourendra Pandey sets aside cancellation of long standing Jamabandi by Collector, Bhagalpur

In David Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Sourendra Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 17-page long judgement dated April 10, 2026, wherein he concluded:"38. This Court is unable to comprehend as to the fact that the Collector, Bhagalpur could not assess the facts of the case despite verbatim noting the submissions being made on behalf of the parties and as such, the impugned order can be said to be passed without application of judicious mind because of the fact that when a matter with respect to title has already been settled between the parties way-back in the year 1983 till the stage of the High Court and no further petition being pending before any other Court, cancelling the long standing Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner, cannot be permitted in the eyes of law. 39. In view of the discussions made hereinabove,  the impugned order dated 31.05.2021, referred to above, is set aside. 40. The Circle Officer, Sultanganj is directed to restore Jamabandi No. 71 with respect to the land in question in favour of the petitioner and any other Jamabandi standing in favour of respondent No. 6 or his forefathers should be cancelled with immediate effect. 41. The writ application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly." 

Justice Pandey framed the dispute involved as to whether the order passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur setting aside the order upholding the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner is beyond jurisdiction; and whether the title needs to be seen prima facie before coming to a finding with regard to cancellation/creation of a Jamabandi.  

The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 provides for a summary proceeding for mutation of land records with the sole object of maintaining updated revenue entries. It is a well settled principle that mutation proceeding do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes. 

Supreme Court has held that mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and the same has been reiterated in Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186.

Justice Pandey observed that the Collector, Bhagalpur dealt with the factual aspect of the matter in detail and noted the factum of creation of Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner and even the reasons of cancellation of Jamabandi, which was created in favour of Nand Kumar Yadav, the respondent No. 6 and, thereafter, came to a conclusion that the dispute between the parties relates to a dispute of title, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Collector and it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court. He pointed out that the Collector, Bhagalpur observed that the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur had decided the matter with regard to the factual aspect of the matter and, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector dated May 21, 2018 was set aside and the proceeding was closed. On perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector in a Jamabandi Cancellation Case of 2017-18,, it was found that the Additional Collector considered the entire facts of the case and taking into consideration the title, which had flown in favour of respondent No. 6 on account of auction purchase and thereby, the order being set aside in a miscellaneous case by the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur and affirmed by the High Court and, therefore, the claim of title of the father of respondent No. 6 was wrong and, thus, he had gone on to hold that Jamabandi No. 71, in favour of the forefathers of the petitioner, was created and was directed to continue. From the order of the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur, it was also evident that he had taken into account the fact that when the amount of Rs. 1500/- was paid by the grandfather of the petitioner to the father of respondent No. 6, the matter was settled for all times to come and, therefore, the very factum of claim over the same by the father of respondent No. 6, came to rest. The Additional Collector, Bhagalpur was that he had also directed for cancellation of Jamabandi No. 189, which also had continued during the said period and had, thus, directed for cancellation of such Jamabandi standing in the name of the father of respondent No. 6.

Justice Pandey took note of the fact that the application for cancellation of Jamabandi No. 71, standing in the name of the forefathers of the petitioner, was made after almost 19 years of the passing of the orders of the Civil Court and, therefore, it is in teeth of the well settled law that a long standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled without taking recourse before a competent Civil Court. He relied on the High Court's decision in Maya Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 PLJR, 584. 

Justice Pandey observed: "....not only the Collector, Bhagalpur has erred in observing that the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur had not considered the factual background of the case, but has also committed an error that on one hand, he is relegating the parties to approach a competent Civil Court, holding it to be a dispute of title, and on the other hand, he has set aside the order of the Addl. Collector without passing a positive order, either restoring the Jamabandi in favour of respondent No. 6 or cancellation of Jamabandi in favour of the forefathers of the petitioner. 37. This Court, on perusal of the records has found that the said land was a Khatiyani land belonging to the petitioner and the claim over the same was on account of auction purchase by the forefathers of respondent No. 6 and, therefore, once the said auction purchase was set aside and Rs. 1500/- was paid by the forefathers of the petitioner to the forefathers of respondent No. 6, question of title or possession over such land in favour of the forefathers of respondent No. 6 cannot arise." 

The writ application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated May 31, 2021 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur in Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal Case No. 121/2019-20, whereby the order dated May 21, 2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur in Jamabandi Cancellation Case of 2017-18 was set aside.

 

Continued incarceration of first time offenders despite serving 1/3rd of maximum sentence is indefensible

Supreme Court in the case of In Re:-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, [Writ Petition (Civil) 406/2013], issued specific directions: “4. In that view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct immediate implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS by calling upon Superintendents of Jails across the country wherever accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of one-half/one-third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail. This step will go a long way in easing overcrowding in jails which is the primary focus of this Court in the present petition. 5. The aforesaid steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. Reports shall be submitted by the Superintendent Jails to their respective Heads of the Department within the same time line for a comprehensive affidavit to be filed by each State Government/Union Territory through their respective Chief Secretaries. The affidavits shall furnish the details of the number of undertrials who would be entitled to extension of the benefit of Section 479 of the BNSS, the number of applications moved before the concerned Courts for their release and the number of undertrials actually released by the date of filing of the affidavits.” 

 

In such a backdrop, the continued incarceration of the first time offenders inside jail despite serving 1/3rd of the maximum sentence is indefensible. Considering the the mandate of Section 479 BNSS, there is no reason to further deprive liberty to the applicants who have spent more than 1/3rd of the maximum imposable sentence in jail.