Judgment of conviction, order of sentence from 1994 by Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari found unsustainable, set aside: Justice Mohit Kumar Shah

In Manindra Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Ashok Kumar Pandey delivered a 84-page long judgement dated  November 24, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"....we find that the finding of conviction recorded by the Ld. Trial Judge, in our opinion is not sustainable and requires interference. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.1994 and 30.11.1994 respectively, passed by the Ld. Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 1992/37 of 1994 (arising out of Govindganj (Malahi) Police Station Case No. 18 of 1992) are set aside. The appellants of the aforesaid appeal are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 74. The appellants of both the aforesaid appeals are on bail, hence they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 75. Consequently, the aforesaid appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 598 of 1994 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1 of 1995 stand allowed." The case was adjudicated along with Satyendra Mani Tripathi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2025). The judgement was authored by Justice Shah.  

Justice Shah observed:"...we find that there is irreconcilable conflict between the oral and the medical evidence and the medical evidence completely rules out all possibility of the injuries taking place in the manner alleged, hence the same would warrant discarding not only the testimony of the eye witnesses but also the case of the prosecution." 

Both the appeals were filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.1994 and 30.11.1994 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 1992 / 37 of 1994 (arising out of Govindganj (Malahi) Police Station Case No. 18 of 1992) by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, hence the same were disposed off by the common judgment and order.

By the said judgment dated 29.11.1994, the appellants of the two appeals were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as far as the appellants of the second case were concerned, they were also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the order of sentence dated 30.11.1994, the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and as far as the appellants of the second case were concerned, they were also  sentenced to undergo  rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 

As per the fardbeyan of the informant Jaikant Mani Tripathi (PW-12), recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely M. S. Khan (PW-13), Officer-in-Charge, Malahi Police Station on 04.02.1992 at 00:30 a.m. at the bathan of Ambika Sah of village Nagdaha is that in the night at about 09:00 p.m. he along with his deceased brother Deo Saran Mani Tripathi were going for irrigating their field towards the eastern-southern side of their house and when they reached south of Harijan Toli, situated near Primary School, Nagdaha some people had surrounded them, whereupon his deceased brother, in the light of the torch, which he was holding in his hand, had recognized the co-villagers, namely Satyendra Mani Tripathi, Kamendra Mani Tripathi and Manoj Tiwary, who were holding rifle and double barrel gun respectively in their hands, whereupon the deceased brother of the informant asked them as to why they were surrounded them, upon which Satyendra Mani Tripathi (appellant no.1 of the second case) said that he was the person who had accumulated co-villagers, got their signatures and had got them to depose against them, hence they would kill him. Thereafter, both the brothers had ran towards the northern side near Nagdaha Giri tola but the said accused persons had fired from their rifle/gun indiscriminately resulting in the brother of the informant falling on the road on the southern side of Nagdaha Giri tola on account of being hit by gun shots, whereafter the informant while raising hulla had ran towards Giri tola and on hearing his hulla (alarm) as also upon hearing the sound of gunshot firing, Bhibhikhan Giri (P.W. 3), Ram Dekhan Giri (P.W. 5), Vijay Kant Giri (P.W. 7) and Ramraj Giri (P.W. 4) as also many other persons had arrived there, who had seen the accused persons running away, whereupon they had chased them but they managed to flee away towards the village. The informant had then gone near his brother Deo Saran Mani Tripathi, who had fallen on the ground and had found him to be dead as also he was smeared with blood. He had been hit by gun shots on his head, back, neck and chest. The informant has further stated that the reason for the said occurrence is that Satyendra Mani Tripathi (appellant no.1 of the second case) is Chairman of Nagdaha Cooperative Society and he has withdrawn Rs. 4-5 lacs belonging to him and other villagers, which was being opposed to by his brother, who had also got a representation filed on behalf of the villagers as also had got the villagers to depose against him. The fardbeyan of the informant was signed by Bachandeo Giri and Bipin Giri (P.W. 10) as witnesses to the same. 

Taking into account an overall perspective of the entire case, emerging out of the totality of the facts and circumstance, and considering the evidence which has been brought on record to prove the allegations levelled against the appellants, Justice Shah also observed: "we find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts the commission of offence by the appellants. Therefore, we find that the Ld. Trial Judge has committed a gross error in holding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary as well as materials available on record definitely go to prove the offence under Section 302/34, qua the aforesaid appellants of both the aforesaid Appeals as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act qua the appellants of the second case. Thus, in the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove and for the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that there are compelling reasons in the present case which necessitates that the appellants of the aforesaid appeals be given the benefit of doubt." 

 

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection order by Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey in a NDPS case involving recovery of 1.025 kg charas from co-accused

In Manish Yadav vs.The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi passed a 4-page order dated November 20, 2025, wherein, it allowed the appeal. The order reads: "The order passed by the High Court rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant in connection with Case No. 820 of 2023 is set aside. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The criminal appeal had arisen from an order dated May 15, 2025 passed by Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court which had rejected the regular bail prayer of the appellant in connection with a NDPS case at P.S. Motihari Town, East Champaran.

The appellant's counsel submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from the appellant and his complicity came to light only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. It was submitted that he was also been implicated in one similar case wherein he was released on bail. The counsel for the respondent opposed the bail prayer but could not demonstrate as to whether anything incriminating was recovered from the appellant.

Supreme Court observed: "6. In such circumstances, having regard to the nature of allegations qua the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and direct release of the appellant on bail pending trial." 

In Manish Yadav vs.The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Pandey of High Court had passed a 2-page long order dated May 15, 2025, wherein, he refused the bail considering the facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation, saying, "I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected."

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 465, 483/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 of the NDPS Act. It was alleged that 1.025 kg of charas was recovered from the possession of co-accused Avinash Yadav @ Abu Yadav. During interrogation, he disclosed the name of the petitioner as his associate, who was the pillion rider and managed to flee away. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and falsely been implicated in this case. He also further submitted that his name figured in confessional statement of co-accused Avinash Yadav @ Abu Yadav, who was arrested at the spot and from his possession 1.025 kg of charas was recovered. The petitioner was under custody since August 8, 2024. The APP for the State had opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner was also accompanying co-accused Avinash Yadav @ Abu Yadav from whose possession, the alleged contraband in commercial quantity was recovered. The petitioner had a criminal antecedent of similar nature. 

Brajesh Kumar Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge accuses Rishi Kant, Principal District and Sessions Judge of interfering in judicial proceedings to save DM, SP of Begusarai from contempt

Brajesh Kumar Singh, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has passed an order stating that Rishi Kant, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai of interfering in judicial proceedings to save DM and SP of Begusarai from contempt. In an order passed on November 17, Judge Singh has stated that Judge Kant abruptly recalled an execution case from his court, without any application from the parties or any report from him, after he recommended contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP) of Begusarai for failing to comply with court directions. 

Singh is the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai since February 1, 2025. He has done his Masters in Law. He will retire in February 2041. Singh has accused Rishi Kant, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of interfering in an execution petition against the DM and SP. Kant is Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai since March 5, 2025. He has done his Graduation in Law. He will retire in December 2037. 

The execution petition in question is related to a compensation amount of ₹11 lakh, awarded in August 2023 to the guardian of a petitioner who died in an accident caused by a police vehicle. The authorities allegedly failed to release the compensation, prompting the judge to consider contempt action. Judge Singh was hearing the matter since early 2024 before the astounding recall order without perusal of the case file in question. 

Judge Singh stated that Judge Kant passed the recall order “hastily” even though the case file was still with his court. Citing provision under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Singh said that its provision does not allow transfers at the whims of a senior judge. His order reads: “Every such order of transfer must be based on sound judicial principles… The Principal District and Sessions Judge has no absolute power to transfer the case when the transferor court is at the stage of concluding the proceedings,”  He observed:“Why only poor should be subjected to coercive orders… when mighty bureaucrats are made absolutely immune from judicial process in the lower judiciary.” 

In Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through D.M., Begusarai & Ors. (2025), Brajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, the Presiding Judge in the Court of District Judge-III, Begusarai passed an order dated November 17, 2025. The order reads:"Vide order dated 14.10.2025 against D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai, the contempt proceeding was recommended, and for this purpose, a separate miscellaneous case was registered. Vide the same order, show-causes from D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai were invited, however, till date, no show cause has been filed on their behalf. This court has given several opportunities to both D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai for receiving their respective replies as condition precedent to start contempt against them, but they have let the opportunities go. On behalf of D.M. Begusarai, neither show-cause nor response was filed. However, a response on behalf of S.P., Begusarai to the order dated 14.10.2025 has been filed. It is relevant to point out that, in para no-08 at page no-04 of his response, the S.P., Begusarai reserved his right to file his detailed show-cause before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna itself. It appears that D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai are willing to file their respective show-causes in the Hon'ble High Court, Patna directly. Hence, this court finds fit to direct the O.C to send the extracts of miscellaneous case (with the relevant orders) to the Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Patna with the recommendation to initiate contempt against the S.P., Begusarai and D.M., Begusarai in view of the order of this court dated 14.10.2025. Put up this case on 26-11-2025." 

The order reads:"Later on, an order no-488 (Misc.) dated 15.11.2025 of Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusrai was communicated. The copy of the order is shown to me. In the order, the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has been pleased to recall the present execution case no-01/2024 for keeping the same in his peronal file, for hearing and disposal. Though, this court has no vested interest in the matter, and is willing to send the records of the case to Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai, and accordingly, O.C is directed to hand over the entire case records to the court of Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai for keeping the records in his personal file, yet this court notes that the case is recalled by the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai without any application at the behest of either party or without report of the court." 

The order observed: "More importantly, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has passed the aforesaid hasty order of transfer without even looking at the records, may be on the basis of his personal knowledge, because the entire file is pending in the court of District Judge-III." The Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has palpably passed the order in the interest of so-called 'administration', however, section 24 of CPC is conspicuously silent about transfer on the ground of so-called 'administration'. It is trite that power of the Principal District and Sessions Judge u/s-24 of the CPC can not be exercised at his whims and fancies'. It is well established that every such order of transfer must be based on sound judicial priniciples, which principles are conspicuously absent in the present order of transfer. The alternative phrase "of its own motion" used in section 24 of the CPC cannot be equated with the pleasure' of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has no absolute power to transfer alternative phrase "of its own motion" used in section 24 of the CPC cannot be equated with 'the pleasure' of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has no absolute power to transfer the case when the transferor court is at the stage of concluding the proceedings in that case. By transferring the case at the concluding-stage from this court, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge has violated the principle of judicial independence', the very judicial principle which every judge has sworn protect."

The order concluded: "By passing the order of transfer, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge has made the judiciary a matter of laughing stocks in as much as the judges of sub-ordinate judiciary appear to be only paper tigers, having order passed by them has got binding effect on mighty and powerful bureaucrats. Truely speaking, my morale is badly dampened by seeing as to how the water is thrown at the entire efforts of this court by sheer this transfer. No judge would ever dare to pass order against the mighty bureaucrats like D.Ms and S.Ps, and then why only poor should be subjected to coercive orders of the court for non- compliance, when mighty bureaucrats are made absolutely immune from judicial process in the lower judiciary. In my opinion, the transfer by Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai was made to shield the D.M., Begusarai and S.P, Begusarai from contempt proceeding. It is relevant to point out that the incumbent Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has interfered in the judicial process in this case on earlier occasions also, which fact is duly recorded in the order of this count dated 23.09.2025. Nevertheless, let the justice be done in this case. am withdrawing from this case as mandated by the aforesaid transfer by Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai, but I have no regrets."

The principles with respect to the transfer of case under Section 24 CPC have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others (2008) 3 SCC 659. It has held: "At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action…………..”

The observation of the Supreme Court demonstrates that Judge Kant seemed to have erred in passing order of transfer with out application of mind because the file of the case has not even reached him.    

Application for bail of Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) cannot be rejected on the ground of heinous offence: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

In Juvenile “X”, through His Natural Guardian His Father Namely, Ashok Mistry @ Ashok Mistri vs. The State of Bihar (2024) which was adjudicated along with 24 similar cases from Gaya, Rohtas, Patna, Aurangabad, Supaul, East Champaran, West Champaran, Kaimur, Katihar, Vaishali, Banka, Saran, Muzaffarpur and Sitamarhi, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of the High Court had delivered a 33-page long judgement wherein he underlined that Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and the Courts of Appeal cannot deal with the applications for bail and connected appeals on the consideration that the offences committed by the petitioners are heinous offences. 

Justice Chaudhuri concluded: "Both the Boards and the Courts of Appeal must be free from this mind set that an application for bail of CICL cannot be rejected on the ground of heinous offence. At the same time, the Board and the Courts of Appeal shall remain alive to impose conditions for bail in the manner through which the future of CICL is protected. He may be kept under the supervision and guidance of a proper person so that he may not come in association of known criminals or that the order of bail expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or it will defeat ends of justice. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to allow these batch of revision on contest. The petitioners / CICLs shall be released on bail....." 

Justice Chaudhuri's direction reads:"Let a copy of this judgement be transmitted by the Registry of this Court to all the District Judges within two weeks for circulation to all the Juvenile Justice Boards and Children’s Courts, constituted under the said Act (Act 2 of 2016) for their appraisal as to the mode and manner and the factual and legal consideration while granting or rejecting a prayer for bail or connected Appeal under the said Act. Office is directed to send the email of this order to the respective Courts." 

He drew on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Juvenile X through his father vs. State of U. P. and Anr., reported in 2021 SCC Online All 1091, which had succinctly dealt with the requirement to be followed by the Probation Officer while filing Social Investigation Report. The relevant paragraph 19 of the judgement reads: "‘Form-6’ of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, contains a detailed proforma of the social investigation report. The report has three parts; the first part requires the Probation Officer to give the data or information regarding the close relatives in the family, delinquency records of the family, social and economic status, ethical code of the family, attitude towards religion, relationship amongst the family members, the relationship with the parents, living conditions etc. Thereafter, the report requires the Probation Officer to provide the child's history regarding his mental condition, physical condition, habits, interests, personality traits, neighbourhood, neighbours’ report, and school, employment, if any, friends, the child being subject to any form of abuse, circumstances of apprehension of the child, mental condition of the child. The most important part of the report is the third part i.e. the result of inquiry where the Probation Officer is required to inform the Board about the emotional factors, physical condition, intelligence, social and economic factors, suggestive cause of the problems, analysis of the case including reasons/contributing factors for the offence, opinion of experts consulted and recommendation regarding rehabilitation by the Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer. It is incumbent upon the Juvenile Justice Board to take into consideration the social investigation report and make an objective assessment of the reasonable grounds for rejecting the bail application of the juvenile.” Justice Chaudhary inadvertently referred to para 23 instead of para 19 of the Allahabad High Court's judgement dated October 1, 2024 in Criminal Revision No. 611 of 2023.   

Supreme Court seized with challenge against Patna High Court's order which set aside Children’s Court's order against order by Juvenile Justice Board

In Munni Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.(2025), Supreme Court's Division of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi passed a 2-page long order dated November 20, 2025, upon hearing the SLP (Criminal) wherein the petitioner has challenged the 6-page long order dated July 31, 2025 by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of the Patna High Court in Gautam Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.(2025). The Division Bench condoned the delay, issued notice, returnable on January 9, 2026. The order reads: "5. In the notice itself let it be mentioned that the 1respondents are required to file the counter affidavit before the next date of listing. 6. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of all further proceedings arising out of FIR No.644 of 2022 of Ara Town Police Station, Bhojpur District, Bihar." 

In Gautam Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.(2025), Justice Chaudhuri had passed the order dated July 31, 2025, wherein, referring to the case of Children in Conflict with Law (CICL), he had concluded: "11. The learned Children’s Court mis-appreciated the provision of Section 104(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The aforementioned provision provides that without prejudice to the provision for appeal and revision, under the said Act, the Committee or Board may on an application received in this behalf amend any orders passed by itself, as to the institution to which a child is to be sent or as to the person under whose care or supervision a child is to be placed under the Act. Clause-(2) of Section 104 speaks about amendment of clerical and arithmetical mistake. 12. Second application filed by the petitioner was not an application for rectification of any clerical mistake. This was an application for declaring the petitioner as a juvenile. The said application is maintainable and the order passed by the Children’s Court in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2024 is set aside. The CICL shall be tried in accordance with the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 13. The instant revision is accordingly, allowed on contest. There shall be however, no order as to cost." 

The second respondent was/is Munni Devi, wife of Satya Narayan Rai, Badka Chanda village, Koelwar, Bhojpur. The case arose out of a PS. case 2022 Thana-Ara Nagar, Bhojpur.

This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated October 1, 2024 passed by the First Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Bhojpur at Ara in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2024, whereby the Court of Appeal set aside the order dated May 1, 2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in a J.J.B. case of 2023. The revision petition had challenged the order dated October 1, 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2024.

The Ara Town P.S. case of 2022 was registered on the basis of Fardbeyan of one Ramadhar Rai, which was recorded by the S.H.O. of Ara Town police station on July 17, 2020 at around 5:00 a.m., the informant went to the house of his step mother, namely, Sumitra Devi. As soon as he reached in front of the door of the house of Sumitra Devi, he found blood sipping out from beneath the door. Immediately he opened the gate and found dead-body of his step mother having bleeding injury on her body. He also found the dead-body of Ram Awadhesh Rai @ Munna lying on the bed having fetal injury on his abdomen. It appeared to the informant that both of them were shot dead then he rushed to call Premchand Rai, brother of Sumitra Devi, who used to reside in the neighborhood some other people also rushed to the place of occurrence and gathered on the basis of the said statement, police registered Ara Town P.S. case of 2022 dated July 17, 2020 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 

During investigation, the Investigating Officer suspected the informant, his son Gautam Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Bittu @ Arbaaz Khan as the perpetrated of the offence. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against Gautam Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Bittu @ Arbaaz Khan while the investigation was kept pending against the informant Ramadhar Rai, Nikhil Kumar and Vikas Kumar.

The petitioner had filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara claiming himself to be a juvenile on the date of commission of offence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for further consideration. Initially the Board by an order dated December 14, 2022 rejected the petition filed by the CICL holding, inter-alia-that the plea of juvenility by the petitioner was wrong and concocted. The petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the said order. The petitioner filed a second petition on July 15, 2023 with similar prayer along with Admit Card, Mark-sheet,
Registration Receipt issued by the Bihar School Examination Board and Transfer Certificate issued by the R.N. High School, Birampur, Bhojpur and also his Aadhar Card. On the basis of the said documents, the petitioner claimed that on the date of occurrence he was aged about 16 years 03 months and 29 days as his date of birth was March 12, 2006. The Juvenile Justice Board on verification of those documents under the provision of Section 94(2) of the said Act held the petitioner as a juvenile on the date of commission of offence. Against the said order, one Munni Devi daughter of deceased Sumitra Devi preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum-Children Court at Ara, which was registered as Criminal Appeal
No.31 of 2024. The Trial Judge had allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated May 1, 2024 holding, inter-alia, that Section 104 of the said Act does not contemplate for a review of the earlier order of the Board and the Board has no jurisdiction to pass subsequent order dated May 1, 2024 declaring the CICL as juvenile. 

The petitioner's Advocate submitted that the CICL did not seek for review, the subsequent petition filed on behalf of the CICL was indeed an application under Section 9(2) of the said Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara and the Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal. He also submitted that Section 9(2) of the said Act authorizes a CICL to raise claim of juvenility at any stage and whenever this plea is taken, it is the duty of the Court to direct the Board to conduct a fair and proper inquiry to ascertain the truth by examining the correctness of the documents or certificates or materials produced before the Court. Initially, the CICL could not produce enough document to prove that he was juvenile on the date of commission of alleged offence, subsequent application was filed on the basis of additional documents, viz. Matriculation certificate, Admit Card issued by the Bihar Secondary Board of Education, Transfer Certificate, Aadhar Card etc. On the basis of said document, the Board had power to pass fresh judgment declaring the CICL as a juvenile on the date of commission of offence. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2023) 15 SCC 683 and Rahul Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2739.

Now the matter is before the Supreme Court.

Why is Law Day, celebrated as Constitution Day since 2015

The Constituent Assembly, was constituted in terms of a statement dated May 16 1946 by the Government of UK. Among the members of the Assembly were the Presidents of the Indian National Congress, the Depressed Classes League, the Muslim League, the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, the All India Women's Conference, the All India Landholders Association, the Hindu Maha Sabha, the Servants of India Society and the Anglo-Indian Association. There were also some Vice Chancellors, businessmen, working class representatives, journalists and authors. Notably, five ex-Presidents of the Indian National Congress were it's members. 

Out of the 296 members of the Assembly originally allotted to what were then known as the Governors' Provinces and Chief Commissioners' Provinces, 208 were elected on the Congress vote. The then Indian States, whose representatives joined the Assembly later, had been allotted 93 seats. Out of its strength of 208, as many as 30 were from outside the party. From the minorities, the Scheduled Castes accounted for 29; the Scheduled Tribes 4, the Indian Christians 6, the Anglo-Indians 3 and the Parsis 3, thereby ensuring liberal representation to all minorities. Out of the 4 seats allotted to the Sikhs, the Congress had 3.

In the Constituent Assembly, Jawaharlal Nehru, explained the philosophy behind the Constitution:

"A Constitution, if it is out of touch with the people's life, aims and aspirations it becomes rather empty; if it falls behind those aims, it drags the people down. It should be something ahead to keep people's eyes and minds upto a certain high mark".

The Constitution is a collective declaration of the determination of the people of a nation, to live in an orderly fashion for the common good and well-being of the whole nation. 

The Constitution of India was drafted at a cost of approximately 6 crore rupees, in 2 years, 11 months and 18 days was adopted on November 26, 1949. 

The Constituent Assembly of India, Government of India published a notification dated November 26, 1949 in The Gazette of India, Extraordinary. It reads:"The Constitution of India as passed by the Constituent Assembly has been authenticated by the President of the Assembly by affixing his signature thereto this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, and is hereby published for general information:--

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly Preamble. resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the indivi- dual and the unity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."

Part XXII of the Constitution which deals with the Short Title, Commencement and Repeals has three Articles. Under this part Article 393 reads:."This Constitution may be called the Constitution of India."

Article 394 reads: "This article and articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 60, 324, 366, 367, 379, 380, 388, 391, 392 and 393 shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Constitution shall come into force on the twenty- sixth day of January, 1950, which day is referred to in this Constitution as the commencement of this Constitution." Thus, 15 Articles of the Constitution of India came into force on November 26, , 1949. 

Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9: These articles relate to citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution.

Article 60: This article deals with the oath of office for the President.

Article 324: This article provides for the powers of the Election Commission of India to prepare the electoral roll and conduct elections.

Articles 366 and 367: These are interpretation articles, defining various terms and concepts used throughout the Constitution.

Article 369: This article provided temporary powers to the Parliament to make laws on specific matters listed under the State List. 

Article 395 reads: "The Indian Independence Act, 1947, and the Government of India Act, 1935, together with all enactments amending or supplementing the latter Act, but not including the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949, are hereby repealed." 

The Constitution of India came into force in its entirety on January 26, 1950.

Prior to this a total 12 sessions of the Constituent Assembly were held. The 1st session was from 09 to 23 December 1946, 2nd from 20 to 25 January 1947, 3rd from 28 April to 02 May 1947, 4th from 13-14 July 1947, 5th from 14 to 30 August 1947, 6th on 27 January 1948, 7th from 04 November 1948 to 08 January 1949, 8th from 16 May to 16 June 1949, 9th from 30 July to 18 September 1949, 10th from 6 to 17 October 1949, 11th from 14 to 26 November 1949 and 12th session was on 24th January 1950. A committee was formed to draft the constitution which had a total of 389 members. 

The Constituent Assembly held approximately 166 meetings in 2 years, 11 months and 18 days. The press and the public were free to attend its meetings. The draft constitution was prepared by the drafting committee and presented to the assembly on November 4, 1947. The draft was discussed in the Constituent Assembly and about 2000 amendments were made during these 2 years. The Indian Constitution has taken a lot from the constitutions of other countries including the Britain, Australia, United States, Soviet Union, Canada, France, Germany, South Africa and Japan. The Indian Constitution is a mix of all the best constitutions in the world. 

On November 26, 2015 a special session of Parliament was conducted to give tribute to the Constitution of India and to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who was the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. Since then, the day is celebrated as Constitution Day. 

Legal fraternity has been celebrating November 26 as "Law Day" since 1979. The Courts act against the unconstitutional acts of the States and other entities to enforce the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the fundamental law of the country.

The Constitution has given due and important place to the Judiciary in the State mechanism of the nation.

Also read: Why is Law Day, celebrated as Constitution Day since 2015

 

Government notifies four labour codes amidst bitter protest

After over five years of their enactment, Union Government has notified the four labour codes - The Code on Wages, 2019, The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, The Code on Social Security, 2020 and The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.  

The codification of 29 existing labour laws into four Labour Codes have been undertaken disregarding the bitter opposition of trade unions and workers and the legacy of workers struggle. 

The Code on Wages, 2019 merges the provisions of four existing laws- The Payment of Wages Act, 1936; The Minimum Wages Act, 1948; The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; and The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. 

The Industrial Relations Code has amalgamated the relevant provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Code on Social Security incorporates existing nine Social Security Acts viz; The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923; The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959; The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961; The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; The Cine-Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981; The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 and; The Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008. 

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2020 has merged the relevant provisions of the 13 Central Labour Acts- The Factories Act, 1948; The Plantations Labour Act, 1951; The Mines Act, 1952; The Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955; The Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958; The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961; The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966; The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; The Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976; The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979; The Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981; The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and; The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.

The TISS and Kedar Das Institute of Labour and Social Studies had jointly organised a three-day residential training programme for labour organisers/trade union activists, who work among informal sector workers. The training programme wad held during 26- 28 February, 2022. 

Sessions were held on the history of the trade union movement in India, the structure of labour force in India, workers' rights in the constitutional framework, new four labour codes and their implications for workers in the informal sector, and issues, challenges and strategies of organising scheme workers, construction workers, domestic workers, and industrial workers.

Resource persons who addressed the sessions were Dr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate, Sukumar Damle, Prof. Yugal Rayalu, Rakhi Sehgal, trade Union activists and Prof. Pushpendra, besides trade Union leaders Ajay Kumar, and Gajnafar Nawab. 

Imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service is unsustainable: Justice Sandeep Kumar

In Kusum Kumari vs. The State of Bihar Through  Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors. (2025), Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered a 16-page long judgement dated November 21, 2025, wherein, it concluded:".....the imposition of major penalty of dismissal from the service is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.03.2018, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service and the revisional order dated 13.09.2024 by which the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected are hereby quashed and set aside. 19.Since the impugned order, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service, has been quashed by this Court, the petitioner will be entitled to all admissible consequential and monetary benefits in accordance with law."

Justice Kumar observed: The petitioner while working as CDPO, Gaunaha, was suspended since a criminal case was registered on the allegation that the petitioner and others were engaged in illegal extortion of money from the Anganwadi Sevikas and the vash collected therefrom was kept in the office drawer. During the disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer had found that the charges are not proved against the petitioner however, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the enquiry report, had ordered for a fresh enquiry on the ground that the Sevikas/witnesses were not examined during the disciplinary proceedings. From the perusal of the second enquiry report, it appears that the respondent authorities have still failed to adduce and appreciate any evidence/witness to establish the charges alleged against the petitioner. Moreover, the respondents have totally inverted the onus and shifted it directly on the petitioner to prove her innocence."

Justice Kumar relied on High Court's decision in Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar vs. B.S. Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited & Ors. reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Pat 1075 : 2000 (3) PLJR 10,l. It held: "11. Under those rules there are detailed provisions for holding regular departmental enquiry. In holding of a departmental enquiry it is required to prove the charges against the delinquent employee by producing departmental witnesses and the by examining them by the enquiry officer. If the delinquent employee does not attend the enquiry even then the department has to prove the charge by examining the witnesses in support of its own documents. In the departmental enquiry no onus is cast upon the delinquent employee to prove the charges. The charges have to be proved by the department. If no witness is called by the department in support of the charges in that case it should be held that the department has not proved its case and in such a situation the enquiry officer cannot record the findings with regard to guilt against the delinquent employee just because the delinquent employee is absent."

Notably, reference was made to the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. H.C. Goel, reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 364.

Justice Gazendra Gadkar held:-"It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous vare must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules. 16. Since the aforesaid principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has been subsequently followed in many other cases, and has not been departed from till today, this Court cannot accept the bald statement urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the charges are based upon the documents so no witnesses need be examined to bring home the charges. 17. The other grounds on which no witnesses have been produced in the said enquiry is that the petitioner has not demanded an oral enquiry. 18. This Court cannot accept this argument for the reasons already indicated when an enquiry has been ordered by the disciplinary authority and an enquiry officer has been appointed it is not for the petitioner to demand that the department must produce witnesses to prove its case. The onus is never on the delinquent employee, on the other hand, onus is on the department to prove the charges and it is for them to produce their witnesses in support of his case against the delinquent employee. 19. Therefore, in the facts of this case, this Court is constrained to hold that by not producing any evidence in support of its case, the respondent authorities have failed to prove the charges against the delinquent employee. Where charges have not been proved the enquiry report loses all its importance and the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained. When a person is thrown out of employment, it must be on the basis of a procedure which is reasonable, just and fair. (See D.K. Jadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., reported in (1993)3 SCC page 259:1994(2) PLJR (SC)55.”  

Justice Kumar drew on these decisions of the Supreme Court. 

The other ten respondents were: The Additional Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Joint Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Special Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Director, Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) - Cum Director (Programme), ICDS Directorate, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Deputy Director (Programe), ICDS Directorate, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, District Magistrate, West Champaran, Betiya. District Magistrate, West Madhubani, District Programme Officer, West Champaran, Betiya,  and District Programme Officer, Madhubani.

 

Pankaj Kumar Lal appointed Officer on Special Duty, Chief Justice Secretariat, Patna High Court

P.K. Malik, the Registrar General of Patna High Court issued a notification dated November 20, 2025. It states that the Acting Chief Justice has appointed Pankaj Kumar Lal, District and Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur (presently working as O.S.D., Patna High Court, Patna) as Officer on Special Duty (Chief Justice Secretariat), Patna High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

The copy of the notification has been forwarded to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Bihar, General Administration Department, Patna, Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Law Department, Patna A.G. (A&E) Bihar, GA. 7, Patna/Under Secretary Personal Claims and Pay Fixation Cell '3', Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna/ Registrar (Vigilance), Patna High Court, Patna/ Registrar (IT)-cum-CPC, Patna High Court, Patna/ Registrar-cum-Secretary, Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna High Court, Patna/ Registrar (Administration), Patna High Court, Patna/Editor, Patna High Court, Patna/Registrar (Establishment), Patna High Court, Patna / Registrar (Appointment), Patna High Court, Patna/I/c Registrar-cum-P.P.S. to the Acting Chief Justice, Patna High Court, Patna/Joint Registrar (Establishment), Patna High Court, Patna/Officer on Special Duty, Patna High Court, Patna/Joint Registrar (IT), Patna High Court, Patna/Additional Registrar, Juvenile Justice Secretariat, Patna High Court, Patna/O.S.D. (Infrastructure), Patna High Court, Patna/Joint Registrar (List), Patna High Court, Patna/Joint Registrar (Judicial), Patna High Court, Patna/Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna/ O.S.D. (Computerization), Patna High Court, Patna/S.O. I/C, Monitoring Cell II, Patna High Court, Patna/ S.O. I/C, Judicial Officers Service Record Room, Patna High Court, Patna/Senior programmer, Patna High Court, Patna/The Director, Bihar Judicial Academy, Patna/Principal District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur for information and necessary action.

Lal has been directed to make over charge of his office at Muzaffarpur immediately and to join his new assignment soon thereafter.

Supreme Court reverses judgement by Justice Chandrashekhar Jha in a Arms Act case

In Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu vs. State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh delivered a 46-page long judgment dated November 20, 2025, wherein, it reversed the judgement by Justice Chandrashekhar Jha of Patna High Court. The judgement was authored by Justice Karol. 

The appellant was aggrieved by the refusal of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court to exercise his inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in terms of judgment and order dated May, 9, 2025 passed in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu vs. State of Bihar (2025), wherein the prayer was made to quash and order taking cognizance dated June 1,2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahasra in connection with Sahasra Sadar P.S. case of 2005 dated April 24, 2005. 

In his 24-page long judgement, Justice Jha had concluded:"....this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance dated 01.06.2022 as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 112 of 2005 against petitioner for the offences under Sections 109, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act and, therefore, same does not require interference by this Court. 34. Hence, the present quashing petition stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit, including any pending petition, if any. 35. As this case was lodged in 2003 for which cognizance was taken in the year 2022, whereafter almost no progress in the trial was made in last more than two years, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months of this order after taking this matter on Board, on day-to-day basis."

The appellant had approached the High Court praying for for quashing of cognizance order dated June 1, 2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa whereby the Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 109, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 30 of the Arms Act and for quashing the supplementary charge-sheet of 2020 submitted under Sections 109, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 30 of the Arms Act, as the same is based on no fresh materials was found since the filing of the original charge-sheet of 2005 as well as first supplementary charge-sheet of 2006 where the allegation was not found true. He had also prayed for quashing of the sanction order dated April 27, 2022 granted by the State Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the prosecution of the petitioner in connection with Saharsa P.S.Case of 2005, as the same was not in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court. 

The petitioner did not get any relief from the High Court. Although belated he got relief from the Supreme Court. 

Referring to Justice Jha's judgement, the Supreme Court recorded:"The High Court rejected the application under Section 482, CrPC observing that various illegalities and irregularities pervaded the issuance of licenses by the appellant, in as much as certain persons who were physically unfit, were issued licenses; in some of the applications approved, the bodyguard of the appellant was listed in the “column of care”; in yet others licenses were issued a mere 2 days after calling for the police report, in which time the said report was obviously not furnished."

Unlike Justice Jha, Justice Karol observed:"....why the investigation in this case took more than a decade to be completed is lost on us. Apparently, it was found that the licenses issued by the appellant were also issued to a fictitious person even at the time when the order for further investigation was taken. Out of the 16 accused persons one person stood charge-sheeted in terms of the first chargesheet and the remaining, excluding the appellant and one Abhishek, were charge-sheeted by way of the second chargesheet. When only the actions of the appellant were subject matter of investigation by the time permission was taken as above- 11 years is quite obviously a timeline afflicted by delay. No reason is forthcoming for this extended period either in the chargesheet or at the instance of the Court having taken cognizance of such chargesheet. In other words, the appellant has had the cloud of a criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years. The judgments above referred to supra hold unequivocally that investigation is covered under the right to speedy trial and it is also held therein, that violation of this right van strike at the root of the investigation itself, leading it to be quashed. At the same time, it must be said that timelines cannot be set in stone for an investigation to be completed nor can outer limit be prescribed within which necessarily, an investigation must be drawn to a close. This is evidenced by the fact that further investigation or rather permission therefore, can be granted even after commencement of trial. [See: Rampal Gautam v The State (2016) Where though, Article 21 would be impacted would be a situation where, like in the present matter, no reason justifiable in nature, can be understood from record for the investigation having taken a large amount of time. The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence." 

Justice Karol concluded:"On this count, prosecution against the appellant is liable to be quashed. The conclusion is that even though, in the one case that has been consistently highlighted by the State, it cannot be said that the appellant acted within the scope of authority as given by Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act, but given that the administrative authorities have already discharged him, that issue need not be taken further. On the issue of sanction being improper and large delay in filing of chargesheet as also consequent action, we have decided in favour of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly allowed."

The petitioner's prayer to the effect that his prosecution was not in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court stands vindicated. 

The Supreme Court has issued the following directions –

(i) ‘Leave of the court’ to file a supplementary chargesheet, is a part of Section 173(8) CrPC. That being the position, the Court is not rendered functus officio having granted such permission. Since the further investigation is being made with the leave of the Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which the Court must perform.

(ii) Reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of the machinery of criminal law. They form the bedrock of fairness, transparency, and accountability in the justice system. If the Court finds or the accused alleges (obviously with proof and reason to substantiate the allegation) that there is a large gap between the first information report and the culminating chargesheet, it is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the explanation so furnished.

The direction above does not come based on this case alone. The Court has noticed on many unfortunate occasions that there is massive delay in filing chargesheet/taking cognizance etc. The Court has time and again, in its pronouncements underscored the necessity of speedy investigation and trial as being important for the accused, victim and the society. However, for a variety of reasons there is still a lag in the translation of this recognition into a reality.

(iii) While it is well acknowledged and recognised that the process of investigation has many moving parts and is therefore impractical to have strict timelines in place, at the same time, the discussion made in the earlier part of this Judgment, clearly establishes that investigations cannot continue endlessly. The accused is not out of place to expect, after a certain point in time, certainty- about the charges against him, giving him ample time to preparing plead his defence. If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other grounds will also have to be considered.

(iv) Reasons are not only important in the judicial sphere, but they are equally essential in administrative matters particularly in matters such as sanction for they open the gateway to greater consequences. Application of mind by the authorities granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion. 

Seizure was illegal, litigation cost of Rs 10,000 shall be realized from erring official in accordance with law: Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

On November 19, 2025, Patna High Court delivered ten judgements in The State of Bihar vs. Satya Narayan Ram, Dilip Kumar Rai Vs. Rajendra Agricultural University & Ors., Rambrij Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Radhe Shyam Paswan vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., Rubi Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Shubham Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Brajesh Kumar Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. besides Sunny Kumar @ Kabir Khan @ Sujit Kumar @ Kabir vs. The Union of India Through N.I.A. New Delhi, Ashraful Alam @ Ishraful Alam @ Fatik vs. The State Through N.I.A., Alamgir Sheikh @ Raju vs. The State Through N.I.A. and Afroz Ansari vs. The State Through N.I.A. which was decided by a common judgement.

In Rubi Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 4-page long judgement dated November 19, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"In this case, the seizure being wholly illegal, we direct the Superintendent of Police, Buxar and the S.H.O., Rajpur Police Station, Buxar to immediately release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on submission of the proof of ownership of the vehicle. Such release shall be done within a period of two weeks from today and immediately on submission of the ownership papers by the petitioner. 8. Since we have found that the seizure was illegal, the petitioner would be entitled for cost of litigation which is assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) payable by the State to the petitioner within four weeks from today. The cost amount shall be realized from the erring official in accordance with law." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad.

The other four respondents were:The Director General of Police, Bihar, Excise Commissioner of Bihar, District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Buxar, Superintendent of Police, Buxar and S.H.O. Rajpur Police Station, Buxar.  

The petitioner had sought a direction for release of the vehicle, namely, Hero Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR09AS4956. The petitioner's counsel drew the attention of the High Court towards the seizure list. It was pointed out that as per the seizure list, a bottle containing 180 ml of English wine was found from the possession of the person who was driving the vehicle. His name was also disclosed in the search and seizure memo. He submitted that even on admitting the seizure list without being prejudiced to the contention of the petitioner, it may be found that what was recovered was 180 ml of English wine from the possession of the rider of the motorcycle. This cannot be said to be an act of transportation of liquor and the vehicle in question could not have been seized on this account. It was also submitted that admittedly in this case, the petitioner being owner of the vehicle was not made accused. 

Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the High Court in Basant Pasi vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 9143 of 2024) decided on June 28, 2024 wherein the Court dealt with an identical matter and held that the seizure of vehicle was result of high handedness on the part of the police officer.

The GP-13 for the State did not dispute the seizure list. It was admitted that the seizure list showed recovery of 180 ml of English wine from one Nikhil Pandey.

Justice Prasad observed: "6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned GP-13 for the State and on perusal of the records, we find that this case is to be disposed of on admitted facts. The search and seizure memo is on the record which is showing the name of the person from whom seizure has been made and the description of the seized article. According to the seizure list, there is a seizure of one piece 8 PM 180 ml English wine from one Nikhil Pandey, son of Anil Pandey, Resident of Village- Kajaria, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar. It is stated that he being one of the relatives of the petitioner had borrowed the vehicle from the husband of the petitioner in the name of some personal work. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the vehicle was involved in transportation of liquor. We are quantified in our views by the earlier judgment of this Court in case of Basant Pasi (supra) and Sunaina @ Suneina versus State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024 (3) BLJ 163 decided on 30.01.2024."

 

Patna High Court delivered six judgements on November 20

Patna High Court delivered six judgements in Anwar Rashid vs. The Union Bank of India through National Investigation Agency, Vikash Kumar Singh @ Vikash Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Ram Naresh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Shmadi Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar, Md. Tanweer Alam vs. The State of Bihar, through the Director General of Police, Department of Home, Government of Bihar and Manoj Mukhiya vs. The State of Bihar on November 20, 2025.

Phase IV and Phase V of Action Plan for Arrears Rreduction in District Judiciary (APAaR-DJ) for Bihar

In Phase IV, during July 2025 - December 2025, for more than 30, 20-30 and 10 years old cases, Bihar has to dispose of all cases over 30 years old (including remaining cases which could not be disposed of in Phase III). It has to dispose of cases which are between 20-30 years old (including remaining cases which could not be disposed of in Phase III). There should be an endeavour should be made to dispose all such matters during Phase IV.

In courts with fewer than 50 cases over 10 years old, or with no such cases, the District Case Management Committee (DCMC) shall: 

(i) Identify the 50 oldest pending cases (including remaining cases which could not be disposed of in Phase III). Out of these 50 cases, the focus should be on and 25 criminal cases and 25 civil cases, excluding execution petitions. 
(ii) Continue to publicly notify the identified cases on court notice boards and to the Bar Association.
(iii) Dispose these cases by the end of December 2025, provided they are not stayed by higher courts. This approach is expected to ensure that even in courts with a lower volume of extremely old cases, the oldest cases still receive priority and efforts made for timely resolution.

In the fourth phase of action plan, the High Court may set the targets that were initially set in Phase II, in the following manner:
-Family Courts: 100 oldest cases
- Commercial Courts: 100 oldest cases
-Juvenile Justice Boards: 100 oldest cases
- POCSO Courts: 50 oldest cases
-Courts exclusively handling offences against women: 50 oldest cases
- Courts handling Prevention of Corruption Act cases: 25 oldest cases
-Courts handling Negotiable Instruments Act cases: 300 oldest cases
- Land Acquisition Cases (LAC): 200 oldest cases
-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) matters: 100 oldest cases
These targeted matters are required to be monitored and the progress of case disposal in these courts are required to be followed up to identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement.

In compliance of directions given in Periyammal (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs. V. Rajamani And Anr. Etc. 2025 INSC 329, the High Court must identify and prepare a list of execution petitions pending for more than 6 months from the date of filing. Such cases must be prioritised and disposed of expeditiously. Principal District and Sessions Judges may also consider redistribution of the execution petitions to give effect to the directions given above. 

If no execution petitions older than 6 months are pending, continue focus on resolving the oldest 20 execution petitions to ensure timely enforcement of judgments. This targeted approach is to ensure that even in courts with a relatively lesser backlog, the oldest and potentially most delayed execution petitions are prioritised, facilitating timely enforcement of judgments and effective administration of justice.

In civil cases, where framing of issues has been pending more than one month after pleadings are complete, continued efforts should be made to expedite framing of issues in such cases. To implement this objective, courts may establish timelines for framing of issues, monitor progress and track the time taken to frame issues and adjust the timeline as needed to ensure efficient and effective case disposal.

Similarly in criminal cases, continued efforts should be made to expedite framing of charges within one month where charges are required to be framed as per law. Expediting framing of charges enables the trial to proceed in a timely manner, reducing delays and promoting efficient justice delivery. It also ensures that the rights of the accused are protected, including the right to a speedy trial and adequate preparation to defend himself/herself. Further, delay in framing of charges may affect the sanctity of evidence on account of unavailability of witnesses, gaps in memory due to lapse of time etc. which may ultimately impact the outcome of the trial.

Expedite the disposal of interim applications in civil suits that have been pending for over three months (including remaining applications which could not be disposed of in Phase III). Continuous efforts to dispose of interim applications at the earliest would ensure the timely progress of the main case, help prevent delays in the trial process, facilitate the delivery of justice by addressing interim issues and contribute to reducing the pendency of cases.

There is a need to identify and prepare a list of civil cases pending for more than 5 years on account of non-service of summons/notices. Such matters should be prioritised 3and focus shall be on effecting service on the parties/witnesses. The District Case Management Committee (DCMC) may collaborate with all the stakeholders including officials from Revenue department, to effectuate service of summons/notices. 

In Phase V, January 2026- June 2026, with regard to complete disposal of 30 years and 20-30 years old cases. In few  states including Bihar, the focus shall be on final disposal of any remaining cases over 30 years and 20-30 years that could not be disposed of in the earlier phases, to bring down the number to zero. 

In all other states, focus shall be to bring down the backlog of cases older than 10 years, if any remaining after Phase IV to zero.  The High Courts may allocate necessary resources to facilitate efficient disposal of cases. Progress of cases may be tracked and strategies adjusted in accordance with the special requirements.

In courts with fewer than 50 cases over 5 years old, or with no such cases, the District Case Management Committee (DCMC) shall:
(i) Identify the 50 oldest pending cases (including remaining cases which could not be disposed of in Phase IV). Out of these 50 cases, the focus should be on and 25 criminal cases and 25 civil cases, excluding execution petitions.
(ii) Continue to publicly notify the identified cases on court notice boards and to the Bar Association.
(iii) Dispose these cases by the end of June 2026, provided they are not stayed by higher courts.

Continue to enforce and, if necessary, adjust the targets set in Phase IV for exclusive courts viz Family Courts, Commercial Courts, Juvenile Justice 4Boards, POCSO Courts, Courts exclusively handling offences against women, Courts handling Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Courts handling Negotiable Instruments Act cases, Land Acquisition Cases and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal matters). For an effective implementation of the plan, the District Case Management Committee (DCMC) may:
1. Set up mechanisms to track progress and identify areas for improvement.
2. Collaborate with stakeholders, including Bar Associations, Legal Services Authorities and law enforcement agencies.
3. Provide training and support to court personnel.
4. Regularly review progress and adjust strategies as per the unique needs.

Continued efforts qua Execution Petitions

(i) In compliance of the judgment in Periyammal (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vx. V. Rajamani And Anr. Etc. 2025 INSC 329, the High Courts must continue identifying and preparing a list of execution petitions pending for more than 6 months from the date of filing. Such cases must be prioritised and disposed of expeditiously. Principal District and Sessions Judges may also consider redistribution of the execution petitions to give effect to the directions given above.
(ii) If no execution petitions older than 6 months are pending, focus shall be on identifying and disposing of the 20 oldest execution petitions. The expeditious disposal of execution petitions is crucial for timely enforcement of judgments, reduces the likelihood of further litigation and disputes, protects the rights of decree-holders and ensures they receive the benefits of the court's judgment, enhances public trust in the justice system by demonstrating its effectiveness and improves the overall efficiency of the judicial system.

In continuation of Phase IV, endeavour shall be made, as a matter of routine, to frame issues in civil cases within one month of completion of pleadings. 

In continuation of Phase IV, endeavour shall be made, as a matter of routine, to frame charges within one month where charges are required to be framed as per law.
 

With regard to disposal of Interim Applications, there a need toe xpedite the disposal of any remaining interim applications in civil suits from Phase III that have been pending for over three months. Continuous efforts to dispose of interim applications at the earliest would ensure the timely progress of the main case, help prevent delays in the trial process, facilitate the delivery of justice by addressing interim issues and contribute to reducing the pendency of cases.

Other Steps to be taken in Phase IV & V
a. One-time physical verification and reconciliation of data 

Comprehensive Physical Verification Process: Identify Pending Cases: Compile a list of all pending cases across District Courts and Special Courts.

Physical Verification: Conduct a thorough physical verification of each case, ensuring that all documents, orders, and judgments are present and accounted for.

Update Existing Records: Update the existing records to reflect the current status of each case, including any changes or developments on the NJDG Portal.

Reconciling Discrepancies:
Identify Discrepancies: Identify any discrepancies in the status/stage of case as in the physical files and the existing records on the NJDG Portal.

Reconcile Discrepancies: Reconcile the discrepancies by verifying and correcting incorrect information and dating undated cases

The objectives of this comprehensive physical verification process is to:

Ensure Accuracy: Ensure the accuracy of the status/stage of the pending cases.

Improve Transparency: Improve transparency and accountability in the judicial process.

Enhance Efficiency: Enhance the efficiency of court proceedings by reducing delays and errors.

Validate Records: Validate existing records, providing a reliable and trustworthy database for future reference

b. Identification of cases pertaining to those incarcerated for more than l/3rd of the maximum term of imprisonment 

Data from Jails to be called qua the undertrials who have already served 113rd of the maximum period of imprisonment, so that these cases may be expedited for disposal. To achieve this objective, following measures be adopted:
1. Identification of eligible undertrials: Identify undertrials who have served 1/3rd of the maximum period of imprisonment for their alleged offence. 
2. Data collection: To identify undertrials as mentioned above, following data qua these undertrials be called from Jails:
- Date of filing of case
- FIR details
-Charges
- Duration of imprisonment
- Stage of trial

3. Expedited disposal: This data may be used to expedite the disposal of cases, potentially through priority listing, fast-track trials, bail hearings, plea bargaining etc.

c. Augmenting Infrastructure of Forensic Science Laboratories 

Efforts should be made to ensure adequate infrastructure facility for Forensic Science Laboratories is present in proportion to the requirement of the courts at every level. To achieve this objective, efforts should focus on:
1. Assessing court requirements: Assessing the number and type of cases requiring forensic analysis, and estimating the corresponding infrastructure needs.
2. Infrastructure development: Developing and upgrading FSL infrastructure, including:
- Laboratory space and equipment
- Staffing and training
- Technology and software
3. Capacity building: Building the capacity of FSLs to handle increased workloads and complex cases.
4. Quality assurance: Implementing quality assurance measures to ensure the accuracy and reliability of forensic analysis.

d. Addressing Shortages of Public Prosecutors

Endeavour should be made by all High Courts to expeditiously fill up the vacancies as and when they arise. To achieve this, the High Courts may:
1. Monitor vacancies: Regularly monitor vacancies and anticipate upcoming vacancies due to retirement or expiry of contract. The High Courts may establish a system to track vacancies and anticipated vacancies.
2. Expedited filling of vacancies: Make every effort in collaboration with State governments and other stakeholders to fill vacancies promptly, avoiding delays and ensuring continuity in judicial functioning.

e. Continuation of Other Steps which were taken m Phase I, II & III.

The steps qua redistribution of cases due to non-availability of judicial officers, Lok Adalat & Mediation, Unready Cases, Record with Appellate/Revisional Courts, Stayed cases, Merit-based resolution of oldest/targeted cases, expedited handling of appeal/revision in targeted cases in higher courts, use of JustiS App/NJDG, use of virtual hearings in targeted cases, addressing the shortage of public prosecutors in courts, utilization of 'urgent case' feature in CIS for Action Plan cases, priority for cases involving individuals with terminal illness or senior citizens, minimizing adjournments and shorter dates in Targeted Cases
and tailored case resolution targets for diverse districts be also continued for Phase IV and Phase V.

f. Regular Meetings with District Judiciary 

The High Courts may hold regular meetings with all the Principal District Judges (through Video Conferencing) and ensure that there is no artificial disposal of cases and adjournments are granted where reasonable cause is shown.

g. Monitoring and Continuous Feedback 

The High Courts to take review of compliance of APAaR (DJ) as issue of inequitable distribution of cases still persists. The High Courts may forward their suggestions qua enhancing effectiveness of APAaR(DJ).

h. Regular DCMC Meetings 

It should be ensured that regular meetings of District Case Management Committees be convened to review progress, reassign targets as needed and resolve bottlenecks hindering case disposal.
i. Inter-Agency Coordination:
(i) Hold refresher meetings with senior police officers and Public Prosecutors.
(ii) Reaffirm appointment of a designated Nodal officer (including from the Revenue Department for decree proceedings) to oversee case-specific challenges, in case such Nodal officer has not been appointed.
(iii) Coordinate with State Governments to address vacancies and performance issues qua Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Assistant Public Prosecutors through targeted training programs in Judicial Academies.

Recommendations:
(i) To comply with the mandate of Periyammal (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs. V. Rajamani And Anr. Etc. 2025 INSC 329, the High Courts may consider setting slightly higher unit criteria for disposal of execution petitions.
(ii) The High Courts may consider incentivising the disposal of targeted cases (both civil and criminal) by granting higher units qua disposal of such cases.
(iii) One-time physical verification of cases may be carried out during the short vacations of the Courts (Diwali, Holi vacations etc.) with the aim of completing the process by May 2026.
(iv) Disposal of the cases should be be in accordance with law. Even in targeted cases, adjournments should not be refused wherever genuine causes are shown.

The Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means for District Courts of Bihar Rules, 2025 notified: Patna High Court

On November 18, 2025, the 19-page long The Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means for the District Courts of Bihar Rules, 2025 with its 28 clauses and two Schedules have been notified in the E-gazette in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and all other enabling sections of the BNSS, audio-video electronic communication for District Courts including sub-divisional courts. Patna High Court notified the Rules, which has been published in the Extra-ordinary edition of the Bihar Gazette. Schedule II has "Request Form for Video Conference".

Clause 28 of the new Rules states the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 has been repealed. But notwithstanding the repeal, provisions of Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020, shall apply to actions and proceedings commenced before these rules came into force.All notifications/orders published/issued under the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, to the extent they are not repugnant to these rules, shall be deemed to have been made or issued under these rules.  

The Rules apply to the district courts including sub-divisional courts of the State of Bihar and to all judicial, departmental and mediation proceedings in pending cases. They have come into force from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette.

The object and reason of the new Rules is to to avoid delay in judicial proceeding due to non-availability of parties, advocates, witnesses and accused physically, it is expedient to formalise and enable use of electronic communication and other audio-video electronic means for the purpose of conducting trial, inquiry and proceeding under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Sections 54, 63, 64, 70, 71, 94, 154, 183, 187, 193, 209, 227, 230, 231, 251, 254, 262, 265, 266, 308, 310, 316, 336, 355, 356, 392, and 530 of BNSS recongnises use of audio-video electronic means and other forms of electronic communication for different proceedings. 

Section 530 of the BNSS provides that all trials, inquires and proceedings under the BNSS, including examination of complainant and witnesses, recording of evidence in inquiries and trials and all appellate proceedings or any other proceeding, may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or use of audio-video electronic means.

Notably, there is no restriction on civil courts in using video conferencing facilities in conducting trial. The District Judiciary in the State of Bihar has been using video conferencing facilities for conducting inquiries and trials in civil as well as criminal proceedings. 

In a letter dated November 18, 2025 addressed to The Superintendent,  Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna and E-Gazette Cell, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna, Pradeep Kumar Malik, Registrar General, Patna High Court has made an urgent "request to send at least 100 (hundred) copies of the published Gazette to this Hon'ble Court. Please treat it as urgent." A copy of the letter and the notification has been forwarded to the Registrar (IT)-cum-C.P.C.; the Deputy Registrar (IT) ($) and S.O., I/c, Computer Cell for information and needful action.

Killer truck BR01G P5779 on Koilwar-Babura-Chhapra Road kills Advocate's son, grievously injures his wife, Bhojpur police yet to take action

On November 9, 2025 at 1.30 pm, Advocate Panchdev Pandey (age-35 years), village: Jamalpur, Panchayat: Daulatpur, Block: Koilwar Bhojpur, Bihar, was going to Bihta, Patna on their motorcycle with his son Suryadev Pandey (age: 4 years) and his family. He was attacked from behind by truck number: BR01G P5779 on PCC foundry road at Muhammadpur Bazaar, Koilwar, Bhojpur. 

As a consequence, Suryadev Pandey, son of Panchdev Pandey, who fell was crushed to death by this truck.

Suman Pandey (32), his wife, is admitted in the intensive care unit since November 9, 2025 due to serious head injury. 

A complaint has been made to Koilwar police station, Bhojpur. The information about the complaint to Koilwar police station was communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur on November 9, 2025 through email but no action has been taken in this regard as yet. The Koilwar police station has not communicated the F.I.R. No. to the complianant so far. 

Subsequently, a complaint was filed online as well. 

Due to total absence of any traffic system and CCTV system, the sand carrying trucks on Koilwar-Babura-Chhapra Road has killed some 500 villagers since Arrah–Chhapra Bridge over the Ganga river connecting Arrah in Bhojpur district to Chhapra in Saran district  Setu) was opened for public use on June 11, 2017. The bridge provides a roadway link between the northern and southern parts of Bihar. 

The ongoing loss of previous human lives create a compelling reason to constitute a judicial inquiry commission to ascertain the human cost of the Koilwar–Babura-Chhapra Road and Bridge and the indiscriminate and myopic road widening without any scientific study of the carrying capacity of this stretch of the road. The hurried pte-election inauguration of the bridge and the commencement of the widened roads without robust traffic system and CCTV is taking it's toll. The overwhelming influence of sand mining firms who seem to be bigger than the state government has ensured that the dust of sand is being moistened and settled by the blood of innocent lives of the residents living and travelling on the Koilwar–Babura-Chhapra Road and the Ganga Bridge with no solution in sight. 

Francis Buchanan has mentioned in ‘Shahabad Journal’ (1812-1813) that he had traveled “by a very good road with brick bridges from Koilwar to Ara”. If he were around his travel on the killer Koilwar- Babura-Chhapra road could have met the bloody fate of the advocate's family.