Supreme Court inquires whether clerk of an advocate had proven the post-mortem report

In Naresh Sahni vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh passed a 3-page long order dated May 5, 2026, wherein, it recorded:"4. Perusal of the special leave petition reveals that the High Court to have had passed an order affirming the conviction way back on 26.04.2022 and the present special leave petition stands filed only on 17.11.2025, and that too without placing on record the testimonies of the witnesses. From the synopsis of the SLP (Pages H & I), it is apparent that it was only on 12.04.2025 that the petitioner made a request for providing a legal-aid counsel for the purpose of filing the special leave petition. Record does not reveal as to whether the petitioner/convict was informed of his statutory rights of getting assistance of a legal-aid counsel; whether he had chosen to prefer any special leave petition and requested for a legal-aid counsel; or that he had ever expressed his desire or was informed of his right of filing the special leave petition. Perusal of the grounds of the special leave petition reveals that it was a clerk of an advocate who had proven the post-mortem report. Whether this is factually correct or not is what needs to be ascertained." 

The petitioner has challenged the 20-page long judgment dated April 26, 2022 in Naresh Sahni vs. State of Bihar (2022) delivered by Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices A. M. Badar and Sunil Kumar Panwar. Supreme Court has condoned the delay. The petitioner has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. He is under incarceration since March 3, 2010. 

Supreme Court's order reads: "10. Let a Report, complete in all respects, dealing with the facts as have emerged from the special leave petition, be called for from the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Let the needful be done within a period of one week from today. 11. The Registrar (Judl.) concerned is directed to communicate the order during the course of the day. 12. Records of the Courts below be immediately called for. A copy thereof, in digital form, be supplied to all concerned. 13. Perhaps on the next date of hearing the matter be considered on merits itself." The case arose from a Sessions Trial of 2011, which arose out of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 34 of 2010 from the court of learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur.