Supreme Court reverses regular bail rejection order by Justice Sandeep Kumar

In Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Mandal vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K  Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 4-page long order dated May 6, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "...considering all the attending circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. (iv) Accordingly, we direct to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing the suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court."

The court passed the order upon hearing the special leave petition filed against the order of rejection of regular bail by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court and to seek bail. 

Supreme Court observed:"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances in which the victim was of 47 years of age at the date of incident and the allegation is not supported by the medical evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent-State oppose the prayer only on the ground that after rejection of the anticipatory bail in 2014, the accused surrendered in 2025."  

Earlier, in Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Mandal vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order date December 18, 2025, wherein, he denied regular bail in the rape case. He concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail."   

The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with Mahila (Sachivalaya) P.S. Case  of 2013 registered for the offence under Sections 376, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner was that he along with others forcibly kidnapped the victim lady and committed rape with her. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was innocent and had not committed any offence. The petitioner was in custody since June 16, 2025. He also submitted that the petitioner was named in the case on the basis of the confessional statement of one Ravi Kumar.