Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sourendra Pandey takes suo motu notice of assault on High Court Advocates by school guards of Delhi Public School

Patna High Court's website reveals non-existence of Chief Justice

Acting Chief Justice PavanKumar Bhimappa Bajanthr all set to retire on October 22

"If, in the city of Patna, the Advocates are assaulted by some goons at about 10:00 P.M., this Court cannot accept the incident as an isolated incident, but prima facie holds that the city is not a safe place for any people to reside.'' 

-Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, Patna High Court in Abhishek Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), March 5, 2024 

On September 9, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey ordered filing of suo motu criminal writ in the matter of assault on two High Court Advocates-husband and wife-by school guards in the vicinity of Delhi Public School in Patna. A criminal writ suo motu case was filed and registered on September 9, 2025 on the orders of High Court's Division Bench comprising of Justices Prasad and Pandey. The matter was raised by Senior Advocates Yogesh Chandra Verma and Ramakant Sharma before the Division Bench.

Significantly, the order by Division Bench of Justices Prasad and Pandey is covered by the precedent set by the 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court which had directed ''the Registry to register a suo moto writ petition [In Re: Assault on two members of the Supreme Court Bar Association at District Court Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar]'' in its order dated March 21, 2024 in the presence of Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Senior Advocates K.K. Venugopal, Vikas Singh and Jayant Bhushan. The 3-judge bench comprised of Chief Justice of India, Justice J,B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra. The case was taken up by Courts Motion.

  

On September 10, 2025, on the third day after the incident the matter was placed before the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice PavanKumar Bhimappa Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha. In In-Re in the matter of assault on the Advocate Shri Anshul Aryan vs. The State of Bihar Through the Director General of Police Bihar, Patna & Ors. (2025) CR. WJC-2415/2025, Patna High Court’s Division Bench heard the case on September 10, 2025. 

The matter was raised by Senior Advocates Yogesh Chandra Verma, Ramakant Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and Advocates Shailendra Kumar Singh besides Advocate Anshul Aaryan and his Advocate wife, the victims of the brutal assault. 

The other two respondents are: Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna and SHO, Rupaspur Police Station, Patna. Justice Bajanthri led bench asked the counsels to make a representation before the concerned authorities and file a PIL which will be entertained if it has merit. The 3-page long order dated September 10, 2025, by the Division Bench order authored by the Acting Chief Justice reads:''In the light of Coordinate Bench decision dated 09.09.2025, SHO, Rupaspur Police Station is present. His personal appearance stands dispensed until further orders. 4. Re-list this case on 17.09.2025.'' The case arose out of P.S. Case No.-558/2025, Rupaspur Thana, Patna. 

 

Acting Chief Justice observed: ''Only the Chief Justice has the power to modify or enlarge the roster or assigned additional cases or not?''. The question is if Acting Chief Justice Bajanthri is indeed the Chief Justice, why is he not sitting in Chief Justice's Court No. 1. If he is indeed the Chief Justice, why is High Court's website not showing any judgement in front of the name of Chief Justice of Patna High Court during August 29, 2025-September 10, 2025.     

 

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, the senior counsel had raised the issue of enactment of Advocates (Protection) Bill which is pending since 2014 and is being reviewed by the Law Commission of India.  

 

Notably, Supreme Court of India has issued notices on  July 16, 2025 to the Union Government, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and other concerned parties by the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta in response to a petition which raised the long-pending demand for protection of lawyers’ rights and privileges through proper legislation. The bench has tagged this plea with an already pending suo motu case, which relates to how investigating agencies have been summoning lawyers who either provide legal opinions or represent clients during the course of investigations. 

The petition was necessitated due to various reported incidents which reveal that there is a compelling need for the bar councils to examine the concerns of breach of privileges and for taking effective measures for safeguarding the advocates from such breach. It was essential for an effective justice dispensation system to ensure that privileges of lawyers were not breached so as to enable them to carry out their duties fearlessly and independently. The attacks on advocates not only affects the personal dignity of individual advocates, but it severely undermines the dignity and functionality of the administration of justice.”

The complaint with regard to the incident of 10.15 A.M. was lodged on September 8, 2025. Advocate Anshul Aaryan suffered serious injury on eye at the hands of Rajat Kumar and other guards. His wife was abused and her iphone pro was snatched and broken. The entire incident is recorded in the iphone. During the course of the hearing, the Court was informed that the Advocates in question are getting threatening calls. Justice Bajanthri asked the victims to make written submissions in this regard. He asked the Advocate General to assist him as to whether the order passed by Division Bench-3 was regular.

 

It is the case that Advocates are suffering because of the traffic jam resulting in their late arrival to the High Court, which results in their cases being passed over or dismissed. When Advocate Aaryan and his wife, an Advocate requested the jam makers with folded hands, they assaulted the Advocates in uniform. This constitutes assault on the officer of the court in the course of their duty. They who obstruct the movement of Advocates towards the High Court impede administration of justice. When Advocates are assaulted and humiliated administration of justice is affected. Any court is competent to hear the matter of such grave physical attack on the officers of the court. Executive minded technicality should not be allowed to come in the way.          

Significantly, in this case no order by Justice Prasad led bench or Justice Bajanthri led bench has been uploaded on the High Court's website as yet although the latter had dictated an order in the open Court. 

Notably, both Justice Bajanthri and Justice Prasad became judge in 2015. The former will retire on October 22, 2025 and the latter will retire on September 4, 2028. The case in question has been listed for next hearing on September 17, 2025, 24 working days ahead of Justice Bajanthri's retirement. Justice Prasad is the third senior-most judge of the High Court.

The case of Advocate Anshul Aaryan and his Advocate wife is similar to the case of Abhishek Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the High Court had taken note of the  F.I.R. which was received and a case was registered under Sections 323/308 of the I.P.C. in Patna by the petitioner. The Court's order recorded how ''a complaint was made to be lodged by the wife of the landlord bearing Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024, under Section 354 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and his Advocate friends, who reside in the same tenanted premises'' by way of a counter case. The High Court's 7-page long order dated March 5, 2024 reads: "Surprisingly enough, when the F.I.R. discloses an assault upon an Advocates with the help of a kitchen knife, which is a sharp cutting weapon. There is no explanation as to why at least F.I.R. was not lodged under Section 326 of the I.P.C. considering the gravity of injury. Secondly, when the F.I.R. discloses that the unarmed young persons pursuing their profession as Advocates, were attacked by the landlord with a bunch of anti-socials and specially, when one of the Advocate was assaulted by sharp cutting weapon on the most vital part of the body, why on due consideration of the prima facie intention of the accused persons, no case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. was instituted. Thirdly, why no case was instituted under Sections 147/148/149 of the I.P.C. when on perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is found that the assailants came in pursuance of their common object to cause physical assault, grievous hurt and in such a manner where intention can be prima facie ascertained of attempt to commit murder. 8. On the contrary, a case under Sections 323 and 308 of the I.P.C. was registered against respondent no.9 and other unknown persons. The respondent no. 9 was called on the Police Station and he was released under Section 41 (A) of the Cr.P.C. after interrogation." 

Now that a counter case been filed against Advocate Anshul Aaryan and his Advocate wife, it is apparent that  the behavior of the police is quite predictable.     

Unlike Justice Bajanthri led bench, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court had observed that "If, in the city of Patna, the Advocates are assaulted by some goons at about 10:00 P.M., this Court cannot accept the incident as an isolated incident, but prima facie holds that the city is not a safe place for any people to reside.'' Justice Prasad led bench seems to echo the views of Justice Chaudhuri.

Coincidentally, the Registrar General, Patna High Court had issued a notice dated August 29, 2025 regarding the new role of Justice P. B. Bajanthri, who has been assigned the task of Acting Chief Justice. The notice reads: "As directed, please take notice that with effect from 29.08.2025 (Friday), after 10:45 A.M., new filings will be made and accepted in the name of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, Justice P. B. Bajanthri." Although Justice Bajanthri has been assigned the task to act as the Acting Chief Justice, unlike the previous Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar who sat in Court No.1, Justice Bajanthri has refused to sit in Court No. 1 of the High Court in an apparent implicit protest against the failure of the competent authority to notify him as the Chief Justice of High Court. 

During August 30, 2025-September 4, 2025, Acting Chief Justice led bench has delivered 32 judgements in M/S Bimla Enterprises through its partner Bhola Thakur vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Food and consumer Protection, Patna, Amit Kumar-Alok Kumar, vs. Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of Bihar Undertaking), BUIDCo Ltd. through its Managing Director, Kiran Devi vs. Akhilesh Mishra, M/s Narsingh Construction vs. The State of Bihar, Sharad Navnath Gange vs. The State of Bihar, M/S Vijayshree Press vs. The State of Bihar Mahendra Prasad Singh @ Mahendra Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Sona Engicon Private Limited vs. The State of Bihar, Brajesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Maurya Motors Private Limited vs. The State of Bihar, Dharmendra Prasad @ Dharmendra vs. The State of Bihar, Ritesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Rohit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Arun Kumar vs. Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Limited. These 12 judgements were delivered on September 1. 

The 14 judgements by his bench in Md. Naushad Hussain vs. Shahida Khaton and Anr., Arun Kumar vs. Sushmita Kumari, Nilu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar, Shashi Bhushan Poddar vs. Gyan Bharti @ Rekha Poddar, Bibek Kumar Jaiswal @ Vivek Kumar Jaiswal vs. Shabnam Jaiswal @ Sabnam Jaiswal, Juhi Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, The State of Bihar vs. Vivek Kumar, The State of Bihar vs. Mani Shankar Jha, The State of Bihar vs. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, M/S Nesh India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar, M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd., vs. The State of Bihar, Pramod Pasi vs. The State of Bihar, Yogendra Yadav vs. The State of Bihar and Alok Kumar vs. The State of Bihar were delivered on September 2. The three judgements out of the 32 judgements so far were delivered in The State of Bihar vs. Md. Rafi Ahmad, The Bihar School Examination Board vs. Anjali Kumari and Geeta Enterprises vs. The State of Bihar on September 3. On September 4, in Mamta Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Bajanthri led bench set aside the order dated October 16, 2019 by Justice Madhuresh Prasad. 

In the absence of a full time Chief Justice, it is apparent that the Advocates have become vulnerable to assault and threats from anti-social elements who seem to have the patronage of some contractor, the beneficial owner of the security agency which provides guards to the school in question. It is also apparent that police is overwhelmed by their disproportionate influence. Unlike Supreme Court, the High Court is yet to assert its authority to protect the Advocates.     

Also read: Justice P. B. Bajanthri takes charge as Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court