Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh

In Md. Kasim vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 4-page long order dated February 19, 2026, wherein, it set aside order dated March 19, 2025 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh. Patna High Court  has dismissed the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest. 

The appellant figured as an accused in Complaint Case of 2016 dated 22nd November, 2016 under Sections 504, 406, 420, 384, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Supreme Court observed;"6. We are conscious that process has been initiated for declaring the appellant as a proclaimed offender owing to the fact that he was absconding for quite some time; however, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the appellant is directed to appear before the trial magistrate on each and every date, unless exempted. Ordered accordingly. 7. In such view of the matter, the appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment and order is set aside. 8. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail on terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court. 9. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court. Also, it is made clear that unless exempted, the appellant shall appear in person before the trial magistrate on each and every day. If there be any breach, the protection granted hereby shall cease to operate."

Justice Singh's order rejected the petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is dismissed as not maintainable. It had recorded the State's counsel that "petitioner has been declared absconder and process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him to ensure his appearance in the Court as such petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail (Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730, State of MP v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 17)

.