In Madhuri Devi vs. Arjun Das @ Kariya & Anr. Etc. (SLP (Crl.) No(s).2126-2130/2025), the counsel of the petitioner drew the attention of the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra towards the counter affidavit dated April 4, 2025, filed by respondent no.2-State of Bihar, which has been affirmed by the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, Bihar. Special reference is made to paragraph nos.13, 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2-State.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the Superintendent of Police of Samastipur district supported the accused and the impugned order, forgetting that it was an FIR filed by the State, which resulted in conviction after due investigation and prosecution. 

Supreme Court expressed its surprise at the blatant stand in the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police of the district in support of the accused.

The Court was constrained to make Ashok Mishra, who had affirmed the affidavit dated April 4, 2025 filed in the present case and was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, Bihar, to be impleaded as respondent no.3 in all the matters.

The case arose out of impugned 10-page long final order dated December 11, 2024 passed by thr Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Verma. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 vide judgment dated August 13, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Samastipur in two Sessions Cases which arose  out of Musrigharai P.S. Case No. 97 of 2021. By order dated

20.08.2024, they have been sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-

each under Section 302/34 read with Section 120B of the

IPC. Appellant/Sunil Kumar is further sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. In

default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three

months.

Supreme Court's order reads: "Let the newly added respondent no.3 be served through the learned counsel for respondent no.2-State. A personal affidavit shall be filed by the newly added respondent no.3, explaining as to under what circumstances, such stand was taken by him in the affidavit in the present case. List on 01.08.2025."