Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Navneet Kumar Pandey in fake Lakme products case

In Rohit Kumar @ Darpan vs. The State of Bihar Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustin George Masih passed a 4-page long order dated April 2, 2026, wherein, it set aside the 2-page long order dated November 21, 2025 in Rohit Kumar @ Darpan vs. The State of Bihar Bihar (2025) passed by Justice Navneet Kumar Pandey of the Patna High Court. The appellant had challenged the judgment and order dated November 21, 2025 passed by Justice Pandey. The appellant had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 228 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/34 of IPC and 63 of Copy Right Act. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with other co-accused, was manufacturing fake Lakme products, and selling them by affixing Hindustan Ltd.’s sticker on it.

Supreme Court observed: "6. We have noticed the nature of crime and the manner in which it was allegedly committed. 7. We allow the present appeal by confirming the order dated 27.02.2026, passed by this Court, with a direction to the appellant to continue to cooperate during the investigation/trial and not to take any unnecessary adjournment. Also, the appellant shall report before the Investigating Officer every alternate Monday, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. and on subsequent dates as and when called upon, till such time the investigation is complete in all respects. 8. If the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court feels that the investigation/trial is delayed on account of the appellant’s conduct, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, including cancellation of bail." 

On February 27, 2026, the Supreme Court had passed an order, which reads:-“8. In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.228 of 2021 of Bodhgaya Police Station, Gaya District, Bihar, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer." 

Justice Pandey had concluded that "the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. 7. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail after framing of charge or after completion of six months in custody." Supreme Courthas reversed the High Court's order.