Supreme Court directs Bar Council of India (BCI) to file counter affidavit in NALSAR convocation row case within two weeks, BCI chairman issues apology

In Mihira Sood & Anr. vs. Bar Council of India & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed an order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, it directed:"no punitive action shall be taken against the students or Faculty of NALSAR University of Law at the instance of Bar Council of India or any State Bar Council in respect of the incidents mentioned in the subject letters." The petitioner was represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate-on-record Rupali Francesca Samuel. Upon hearing the counsel, the Court took the matter on board and issued notice, returnable on September 3, 2026. Radhika Gautam, the counsel appearing on behalf of Bar Council of India (BCI) accepted the notice. Gautam informed the Court that "the offending Circulars have since been withdrawn." The court's order reads:"4. Be that as it may, let the counter affidavit be filed within two weeks." 

 

It all began with the way CJI dismissively responded when the matter of police brutality at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on July 20, 2026 was mentioned before his bench. This brutality took place during the Sansad Chalo march organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and student and youth groups demanding the resignation of the Education Minister for national examination leak scam. The NALSAR students have expressed their strong disapproval of CJI's insensitive approach by protesting against the participation of CJI as the chief guest for their convocation. They wrote, “We feel that receiving our degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct, as reported, appears dismissive of serious allegations of police brutality against protesting citizens sits uncomfortably with what we have been taught to value during our time at NALSAR.” Their statement of condemnation stated that Section 7(1)(b), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act of 1961, establishes the functions of the BCI. "These provisions, the ones applicable to the University are only regarding the BCI's function to set standards for professional conduct and promotion of legal education. Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 restricts disqualifications from enrolment strictly to convictions for criminal offences, which did not take place in the present case. To then direct State Bar Councils to restrict the enrolment of students from the Batch of 2026 does not align with the BCI's statutory functions." 

 

Subsequent to the Court's order, nation-wide condemnation, and apprehending protest from students and youth, Manan Kumar Mishra, chairman, BCI issued an apology to law students in a letter issued on Independence Day amidst bitter criticism from students of NALSAR and National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore regarding BCI's arbitrary and unauthorised order in the backdrop of the row surrounding CJI's participation in NALSAR's 2026 convocation. Mishra's statement reads:"If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same. There should be no hesitation in saying so. An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego. It is simply an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of our students matter". 

BCI chairman had issued an order dated stop the enrolment for NALSAR's graduating batch of 2026 after they objected to the participation of CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest for their convocation. NALSAR's Student Bar Council had demanded a public apology from Mishra. NLSIU's graduating students, current students and alumni had also issued a joint statement in this regard. NLSIU, Bengaluru students have also rejected the presence of the BCI chairperson and the CJI at their own convocation. Mishra's statement reads:"No student should be compelled to attend, and no student should feel compelled to abstain. My only appeal is that the decision should be taken independently, after considering the matter in its entirety and according to their own judgment".

Notably, on July 23, 2026, as chairman of BCI, Mishra had issued a public appeal to the country's legal fraternity, academicians, professionals and intellectuals, urging them to counter what he described as "anti-social and anti-national forces" who are attempting to exploit ongoing student protests to destabilise the country". The press release titled "An Appeal to the Intellectuals of the Country" reads:"Experts in stone pelting have been brought from Jammu and Kashmir and other states into Delhi... These miscreants are reportedly paid substantial sums to create disorder, assault police personnel, and damage public vehicles and property."

 

The case was mentioned on August 14.  When the matter was mentioned, the CJI-led bench observed:"This is absolutely uncalled for..It a dialogue between me and students."The bench added: “I myself, during student days, was involved in student activities. Peacefully they are raising voice, they should be allowed. Even if they are wrong, assuming, they have the right to protest. Who can stop them?. Why Bar Council or any other body should interfere?”.  

 

It is quite likely that the CJI will assign the case to some other bench to comply with the Latin maxim nemo judex in causa sua i.e. no one should be a judge in his or her own case incorporated in The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct adopted in 2002, endorsed by UN resolution in 2006 and reiterated in Regulation 5 (2) of Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 and The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, the judicial standards and principles to be observed and followed by the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts which was unanimously adopted in Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court of India held on May 7, 1997.    

Also read: Supreme Court Bar Association condemns BCI's arbitrary decision to withhold enrolment of NALSAR University Law Graduates, BCI modifies, withdraws its order

Justice Partha Sarthy sets aside proceedings of Caste Scrutiny Committee and order by State Election Commission, Bihar

In Md. Isa vs.The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Partha Sarthy of Patna High Court delivered a 31-page long judgement dated August 14, 026, wherein, he concluded:"51. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, taking into consideration the report dated 31.12.2024 of the three member Committee constituted on the directions of the Criminal Investigation Department (Weaker Section) finding the petitioner to be belonging to Teli (Muslim) caste on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence discussed in detail therein and the contents of the report dated 4.3.2025 of the Committee, this Court is of the opinion that both the Caste Scrutiny Committee in its report dated 4.3.2025 as also the State Election Commission in its order dated 25.6.2025 passed in Case no.56 of 2023 committed an error in applying Act of 1991 as also Amending Act 15 of 2003 in the case of reservation to the post of Mukhiya. 52. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated  28.3.2025 contained in memo no.6574 dated 11.4.2025 as also the order contained in memo no.2876 dated 25.6.2025 passed in Case no.56 of 2023 (Subhash Kumar vs. Md. Isa) by the State Election Commission, Bihar both being unsustainable are hereby set aside. 53. The writ application is allowed."

It was against the Caste Scrutiny Committee proceeding dated March 28, 2025 contained in memo dated April 11, 2025 and the order dated June 25, 2025 passed in Case of 2023 of the State Election Commission that the petitioner had filed the writ application. The case of the petitioner was that in the election held in the year 2021, he was elected on the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Sahuria. A complaint was filed by respondent no.9 before the State Election Commission praying for disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that the seat on which the petitioner had been elected was reserved for Extremely Backward Class (EBC) while the petitioner who belonged to Sheikh community had fraudulently obtained a caste certificate of EBC wrongly showing himself to belong to the caste of Teli (Muslim). Upon the direction of the Criminal Investigation Department (Weaker Section), a three member Enquiry Committee enquired into the caste of the petitioner and submitted its report dated December 31, 2024 according to which it confirmed that the petitioner belonged to Teli (Muslim) caste. The petitioner received a show cause dated February 7, 2025 asking him to respond to the report dated December 31, 2024. The petitioner had submitted his reply on March 4, 2025. Another report dated March 28, 2025 contained in memo dated April 11, 2025 came to be submitted by the three member Caste Scrutiny Committee wherein the claim of the petitioner for reservation in the EBC category on account of belonging to Teli (Muslim) caste was rejected. 

The Commission had proceeded with the Case of 2023 registered on the complaint filed by Subhash Kumar, the respondent no.9 and passed order contained in memo dated June 25, 2025 under the signature of the State Election Commissioner, Bihar holding that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of the State of Bihar and thus was not entitled for reservation on the ground of the illegal caste certificate. Thus his election as a Mukhiya was not proper and as a result he is removed from the said post. It was further ordered to recommend action against the concerned State employee who had issued the incorrect caste certificate to the petitioner. 

Supreme Court sets aside judgement by Patna High Court by an ex parte order

In Sudhir Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 6-page long ex parte order order dated August 12, 2026, wherein, it set aside the judgement by Justice Ansul of Patna High Court dated May 11, 2026.  The order reads: "10. We are unable to sustain the order passed especially noticing the provisions under which the offence has been charged. We are also convinced that the injury having been caused, the circumstances under which it was caused, the exact nature of the wound, are all matters of evidence, which has to be proved and established in a properly constituted trial. Even if there was no injury caused and the person who shot it points a finger at the accused; who aimed at his chest and missed totally, Section 307 could definitely be charged, if there are other attendant circumstances, like the cartridge being recovered from the location, the recovery of the weapon being made under Section 27 and forensic evidence matching the cartridge seized with weapon recovered. 11. We hence set aside the impugned order and direct the investigation to be proceeded with. The accused shall appear before the Magistrate’s Court and with notice to the police, bail shall be considered, after hearing the police and deciding as to whether the police; if seeking custody, is justified in making such a request. The accused shall appear before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IX, Gaya within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. Magadh University Police Station Case No.106 of 2018 registered before that Court shall stand revived. If there is no appearance as directed herein, the police would be entitled to arrest the accused. 12. The appeal shall stand allowed."  

The counsel for Sanjay Kumar Ranjan, the respondent No.2 appeared before the Supreme Court for the first time and prayed for time to produce some documents but the Court was not inclined to grant time given the nature of the impugned order. In such a backdrop, is an ex parte order jurispridentially defensible? 

Notably, the impugned order by Justice Ansul had set aside the entire prosecution in a case charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 as also Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. 

Supreme Court observed: "5. The High Court looked at two aspects to quash the proceedings, the FIR and the injury report. In the FIR, it was alleged that the de-facto complainant, who also gave the first  information statement alleged that at a particular location, the assailants together caught him and in the course of an assault; graphically described, one of the assailants exhorted to shoot the victim in his private parts and one another assailant fired at him pointing towards his private parts, which hit him in his left rib-cage. The High Court found, on a mere reading of the FIR, that the graphic detailing of the incident indicates that the de-facto complainant wanted to spread a very wide net so as to implicate many and that it reads more like a script, which makes it wholly unbelievable. The High Court also took note of the injuries caused, which was in the left flank of the abdomen, which was not indicated as caused by a firearm in the injury report. Looking at the injury caused, it cannot be said that there was a point-blank firing aimed at the groin, presumed the High Court. 6. We are afraid that the High Court completely went overboard and on mere assumptions and presumptions, put an end to the prosecution proceedings."

The High Court had also noticed two decisions from which extracts were made. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699, there was a case in which there was an alleged conspiracy and on a reading of the statements recorded by the police, the Court had come to the conclusion that the statements disclosed only frequent meetings between the accused, after the dismissal of the first accused and prior to the assault alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy. 

In Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.(2023) 20 SCC 194, the Supreme Court cautioned the Courts from looking into the FIR/complaint alone; in a totally different context. There, it was observed that if the complaint is made with an ulterior motive of wreaking personal vengeance, then the complaint would be well drafted with the necessary pleadings and the ingredients of the offence emanating from such pleadings. The warning sounded was that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is not restricted to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation or registration of the case.

Supreme Court observed:"8. We find the dictum coming out from the above cases not to be applicable in the present case. State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 was noticed but not discussed, which is the locus classicus on how a proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be dealt with; the guidelines in which, has been given a complete go-by in the impugned judgment. 9. Admittedly, there was an injury as seen from the injury report. The mere fact that the allegation was of aiming at the groin, but the injury was caused on the left flank of the abdomen cannot be projected as a falsity in itself. Section 149 of the IPC was included and 7 persons were alleged to have participated in the assault of one person. In such a scramble, it is probable that the shot fired did not injure the person in the part of the body at which it was aimed. The assumption of the injury not being a fire arm injury, is one made based on a mere look at the injury report; which according to us is grossly premature. Reading Salib @ Shalu @ Salim AIR 1992 SC 604, we have to observe that there cannot be a corollary drawn that every well drafted complaint would be a falsity in itself." 

Earlier, in Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Ansul had delivered a 7-page long judgement dated May 11, 026, wherein, he had concluded: "10. In the backdrop of land dispute coupled with this frivolous case, the order of cognizance dated 06.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Gaya in connection with Magadh University P. S. Case No. 106 of 2018 for
the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 120(B) of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is quashed so far as the petitioner No. 2 namely Sanjay Kumar Ranjan is concerned. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the present application stands allowed."

Sanjay Kumar Ranjan, the petitioner No. 2 had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order of cognizance dated March 6, 2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Gaya in connection with Magadh University P. S. Case No. 106 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 120(B) of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution was initiated on the statement of one Sudhir Yadav. He alleged that in the context of land dispute he was threatened by seven persons including the petitioner. On August 30, 2018, all of them caught him near “Langra Pull Sripur Tar”. Thereafter, the FIR entered into the area of graphic detailing and becomes an exclusive case of over-implication. The informant stated that Shankar Yadav caught his collar, Ramswaroop Yadav caught his neck, Sanjay Kumar Ranjan (Petitioner) caught his both hands, Mahesh Yadav caught his waist, Dhananjay Kumar alias Chotu Singh caught his collar from behind and Tinku Singh caught his hair and then Shankar Yadav, Ramswaroop Yadav alias Master and Mahesh Yadav exhorted to shoot him in his private part. On this, Shankar Kumar alias Yadav fired after pointing towards his private part which hit him in his left rib-cage. 

The counsel for the petitioner had pointed towards the injury report which showed lacerated wound upon left illium or illiuc bone in left flank of abdomen exposing muscles with loss of skin in front of Injury No. 1. The injury report will not even suggest it to be a case of fire arm injury. However, even if it is presumed to be a firearm injury the only conclusion is that the bullet touched the body and passed by him. In the backdrop of admitted land dispute, the FIR itself assumes a serious context. He may be having some dispute with Shankar Kumar but in his over anxiety he spread the net very wide. He has not only implicated others but has attributed specific role as if some novel was being written or cinema was being played out. Moreover, if he says that the shot was pointed towards the private part but it struck his rib-cage then it cannot be a case of point blank firing. The firing must have been made from a distance. In such a situation, persons who were surrounding him had every chance of getting hurt instead of him but nobody got hurt.

Notably, the High Court noted that the quashing jurisdiction which has evolved from the case of State of Karnataka vs. L Muniswamy and Ors reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 as well as in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and also in Md. Salib vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 20 SCC 194. 

The relevant paragraph 8 of the judgement in L Muniswamy case cited by the High Court reads: “8. Let us then turn to the facts of the case to see whether the High Court was justified in holding that the proceedings against the respondents ought to be quashed in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court and in order to secure the ends of justice. We asked the State counsel time and again to point out any data or material on the basis of which a reasonable likelihood of the respondents being convicted of any offence in connection with the attempted murder of the complainant could be predicated. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution proposes to rely are woefully inadequate for connecting the respondents with the crime, howsoever skilfully one may attempt to weave those bits into a presentable whole. There is no material on the record on which any tribunal could reasonably convict the respondents for any offence connected with the assault on the complainant. It is undisputed that the respondents were nowhere near the scene of offence at the time of the assault. What is alleged against them is that they had conspired to commit that assault. This, we think, is one of those cases in which a charge of conspiracy is hit upon for the mere reason that evidence of direct involvement of the accused is lacking. We have been taken through the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation and the other material. The worst that can be said against the respondents on the basis thereof is that they used to meet one another frequently after the dismissal of Accused 1 and prior to the commission of the assault on the complainant. Why they met, what they said, and whether they held any deliberations at all, are matters on which no witness has said a word. In the circumstances, it would be a sheer waste of public time and money to permit the proceedings to continue against the respondents. The High Court was therefore justified in holding that for meeting the ends of justicc the proceedings against the respondents ought to be quashed.”

The relevant paragraph 26 of the judgement in Md. Salib case cited by the High Court reads:“26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”

Justice Ansul observed:"6. Judicial notice must be taken of this tendency of some seasoned litigants to over implicate people. Over-implication apart from false implication has been the bane of criminal litigation for long. An attempt can be made to define the same. The same occurs in situation where some wrong has been committed with a person by some particular person. He, however, takes it as an opportunity to implicate many of his enemies who may not have any role to play in the crime. In cases of assault it takes the form of being “member of the mob” and assignment of useless and petty roles to accused. “Member of the mob” is a term which is echoing in the courtroom of Bihar for a very long time. It would mean person present at the place of occurrence with no specific overt Act. In matters relating to money transactions it takes the form of persons other than signatories of the documents like agents who negotiated the transactions or before whom money was paid. 7. The legal system is completely aware of such nefarious activities. This has been taken note of very clearly in matrimonial disputes, land disputes and criminal cases arising out of land disputes." 

While the defensibility of the Supreme Court's order will require rigorous attention to factual details of the case and careful perusal of the judgements in question, the fact remains that the observations by Justice Ansul have a ring of truth.   

Supreme Court sets aside regular bail rejection order by Justice Partha Sarthy in a rape case from Mohaniya, Kaimur, Bhabua

In Jokhan @ Jokhan Sant @ Dharmkant Sant vs. The State of Bihar Justice & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 4-page long order dated August 13, 2026, wherein, it set aside the order of Justice Partha Sarthy of Patna High Court. The order reads:"...we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. 10. 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 appeal arose from the order dated January 21, 2026 rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant in connection with P.S. Mohaniya, Kaimur, Bhabua. According to the prosecution case, the victim was found on the terrace of Ramakant’s house. Ramakant is the father of the appellant. The victim complained to her mother that she became unconscious because some scented handkerchief was put on her face by the appellant and, thereafter, she does not remember as to what happened. 

The order records: "5. It is not in dispute that her medical examination was conducted promptly and the medical report found no injury and no signs of recent sexual intercourse. Even to the Doctor, she had not reported any incident of sexual intercourse or sexual assault on her. 6. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated; there is no medical report to corroborate the allegations which were leveled as an afterthought; and they never appeared in the First Information Report or in the statement of the victim made to the Doctor. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the appellant, who has no previous criminal antecedents and has suffered incarceration for a period exceeding one year, is entitled to be released on bail at this stage." The counsel for the State-respondent opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute that there was no specific allegation of sexual assault in the First Information Report and there is no corroboration of the aforesaid allegation in the medical examination report. 

Earlier, in Jokhan @ Jokhan Sant @ Dharmkant Sant vs. The State of Bihar & Anr (2025), Justice Partha Sarthy had passed a 2-page long order dated January 21, 2026, wherein, he had concluded:"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the material that has transpired in course of investigation specially the contents of the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. 7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later."

The petitioner had approached the High Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case no. 676 of 2025 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 64 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was accused of having assaulting and outraging the modesty of the minor daughter of the informant as a result of which she fell unconscious and regained consciousness after three to four hours in the hospital. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as a result of differences between the parties who are next door neighbours. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since August 5, 2025. Referring to the order of the trial Court, it was submitted that even as per the medical report, there is no finding of rape. The application for bail is opposed by APP for the State who submitted that the petitioner was named in the FIR and there is direct allegation against him. Even in her statement under section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim had given a detailed description of the assault etc by the petitioner.

Section 126 of the BNS defines and penalizes the offense of wrongful restraint, which occurs when someone voluntarily stops a person from moving in a direction they have a legal right to go. It replaces Section 341 of the IPC. 

Section 115 of BNS deals with voluntarily causing hurt. It replaces the old Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

 Section 76 of the BNS deals with the offense of assaulting or using criminal force against a woman with the intent to disrobe her or force her to be naked.

Section 64 of BNS has replaced Section 376 of the IPC to define the punishment for rape, mandating at least 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, potentially extending to life imprisonment, and a fine. Section 62 of BNS provides for punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.

Supreme Court Bar Association condemns BCI's arbitrary decision to withhold enrolment of NALSAR University Law Graduates, BCI modifies, withdraws its order

In a letter dated August 13, 2026 addressed to Chairman, Bar Council of India (BCI), President, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has expressed its strongest condemnation regarding the decision taken by the BCI directing that, "Till further orders, no student of NALSAR University of Law, who has obtained the Law Degree in the year 2026, shall be enrolled by any State Bar Council as an Advocate." Subsequent to SCBA's letter, BCI modified its order dated August 13, 2026. All the three letters were issued on August 13, 2026. Now the Chairman, BCI has issued a statement dated August 14, 2026 stating that he has withdrawn the order unconditionally. 

 

It all began with a campaign started by around 450 out of NALSAR’s 1,400 students against invitation to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to their convocation. The campaign followed oral remarks made by the CJI last month while hearing a petition alleging police excesses during the national examination leak scam related protests, wherein, he reportedly remarked, “Please don’t waste our time. We don’t have time to watch these videos” of students and youth being beaten by Delhi Police, Rapid Action Force (RAF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and unidentified ununiformed persons during the seven-week long successful protest at at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. 

Meanwhile, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), the party behind the resignation of education minister, Dharmendra Pradhan in wake of national examination leak scam, issued a detailed statement. It said, BCI's interim directive against NALSAR University of Law graduates "grossly disproportionate, deeply troubling, and prima facie indefensible". Responding to BCI's circular, Saurav Das of CJP said: "Alarming! Mr. Manan Mishra, HANDS OFF our students! How dare you pass such a grossly illegal order? Reveal your law degree to the world now because a lawyer can’t get the law this wrong! Students of NALSAR have displayed democratic dissent against a person they in their own wisdom thought was unfit to give them their hard-earned degrees. Who are you to intervene? Your accountability needs to be talked about too. Tell us why as the statutory regulator (BCI) responsible for supervising State Bar Councils you permitted elected bodies to continue BEYOND their terms until the Supreme Court intervened? Who were these people that were favoured as a result of this? Tell us now.  And why and how have you been holding the post of Chairman since 2012 to now till 2030? Do tell us about your track record. Tell us why did you illegally intervene in the 2026 Chhattisgarh State Bar Council, as stated by the High Court there? Law students and advocates in Delhi and across the country will rise up in protest against you and in support of the students of NALSAR if you don’t WITHDRAW this disgusting notification IMMEDIATELY and apologise for your conduct. Your conduct and tenure as the BCI Chairman (while being BJP RS MP) needs to be accounted for." 

Abhijeet Dipke of CJP observed: "What if all legal cockroaches come together?" Das added: "Much needed. The Bar Council of India needs to be looked into. Manan Mishra has been its Chairman since 2012. What has he done? Needs to be accounted for. All legal cockroaches, your task is cut out. Let’s fix BCI’s accountability. Let’s fix Mishra’s accountability." 

CJP's statement reads:"The Bar Council of India’s decision to halt the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating students as advocates, reportedly because they opposed Chief Justice of India Surya Kant being invited as Chief Guest, is grossly disproportionate, deeply troubling, and prima facie indefensible. Students cannot be collectively penalised for expressing dissent over a ceremonial invitation. The Cockroach Janta Party condemns this order. If Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra does not withdraw this order immediately, then all law students, advocates, senior lawyers, and well-meaning young cockroaches will protest outside Bar Council’s office and Mishra’s official residence, and their respective states. @MishraManan01’s accountability will be fixed." Mishra responded: "Council has already withdrawn that letter." Das reacted:"Mr. Mishra, the order has NOT been fully withdrawn. The part which seeks names of the students and orders for an “inquiry” against them for their peaceful dissent still stands, as per your own new letter. IMMEDIATELY withdraw that entire letter. No student at NALSAR should face any inquiry or witch hunt for their democratic dissent against the Chief Justice of India. You are no one to threaten this. Stay within the four corners of your official duties and stop threatening the students with “inquiry”. Withdraw the letter in full and guarantee NO ACTION against our brilliant law students of NALSAR. The call for protest outside the BCI and Mr. Mishra’s official residence STANDS until this demand is fulfilled." After CJP's threat of protest against him, BCI chairman communicated to CJP that he has modified the order  

CJP was not satisfied with the modification of the BCI's order, it demanded complete withdrawal of BCI's order. Responding to CJP's demand on August 14, 2026, Mishra wrote:"After considering the representations and reactions of Senior Advocates, learned members of the Bar, law students and public spirited citizens, and being satisfied that the 2026 batch of NALSAR, Hyderabad, had no role in any disturbance or movement, the Bar Council of India has decided to close the proceedings altogether. No further action is required @NALSAR_Official. I wish the students the very best for their careers. A word of wisdom: we take immense pride in our legal institutions, and the day you enrol, you become vanguards. Voice your opinions freely, but with respect and institutional decorum. The highest judicial office is our collective pride. Dissent is welcome in a democracy; public ridicule of constitutional institutions is often counterproductive.  Official communication to follow." Das reacted: "It’s done, bro. Another major victory for the youth! But the quest for accountability will continue."

In a letter addressed to the chairman, BCI, Advocate N. Manoj Kumar, a member of both the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Kerala, has objected to the blanket prohibition against the entire 2026 batch which is, "manifestly arbitrary".  

Former Advocate-General of Telangana and senior advocate K Ramakrishna Reddy stated that the BCI had no jurisdiction to direct State Bar Councils against enrolling NALSAR graduates who completed their courses in 2026. Describing the original direction as “manifestly arbitrary” and “without jurisdiction”, he said the BCI’s powers under the Advocates Act primarily concerned professional standards, ethics and conduct.

SCBA's letter stated:"This unprecedented and wholly arbitrary direction is, in my view, illegal, disproportionate and fundamentally unsustainable. It amounts to an attempt to intimidate law students for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Universities are meant to be campuses of free thought and fearless debate. Students cannot be threatened with denial of their right to enter the legal profession merely because they have expressed disagreement with a constitutional authority. Such an approach is fundamentally antithetical to the very values that a law university is expected to nurture....The directive also seriously affects the graduates' fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practise a profession of their choice. A blanket and indefinite restriction of this nature cannot meet the requirements of legality, reasonableness or proportionality. The BCI, as the apex regulatory body of the legal profession, has a greater responsibility to uphold the rule of law and constitutional values. It cannot itself resort to collective punishment or use the professional future of young graduates as a means of institutional discipline. As members of the legal fraternity, it is our collective duty to nurture, support, and welcome the next generation of lawyers, rather than creating arbitrary institutional barriers that stall their careers before they even begin." The letter of SCBA's President concluded:"I therefore urge the Bar Council of India to immediately withdraw this wholly unjustified directive and permit the 2026 NALSAR graduates to seek enrolment without any hindrance and in accordance with law."

The Bar Council of India held its elections on April 15, 2012. BCI had unanimously elected Manan Kumar Mishra as the Chairman of BCI on April 17, 2012. In 2014, after his term expired, BCI Member from Rajasthan Biri Singh Sinsinwar was elected the Chairman. But Sinsinwar resigned from the post after few months. Mishra was again re-elected as Chairman. At present, he is serving his seventh term.

Mohua Moita, the parliamentarian wrote: "BCI has NO women imagine." BCI is a highly unrepresentative body but the plea for SC/ST representation in state bar councils was not entertained last year by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh. 

Earlier, in an animated exchange of words between Advocate on Record Kumud Lata Dass and Mishra in the Court of Chief Justice of India, she had stated that to the BCI Chairman "You're virtually a permanent Chairman...."

Saurav Das wrote:" Manan Mishra needs to go. Enough of him since 2012. All kinds of illegalities have been committed under his chairmanship. Our lawyers deserve better. Time’s up for Manan bro." Nagendra Sharma, a writer-advocate wrote:"It is also a case of huge conflict of interest. He runs a law university  in Goa through a trust set up by BCI and is setting up one more such university in Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh.  It is a clear attempt to undermine and diminish highly reputed and public funded NALSAR and to create space in South for his universities that charge over rs 10 lakh per annum per student." Das asked Mishra:"Very, very serious questions raised. @MishraManan01, is this true? Is this not misuse of the powers of your office? You’ve been the Chairman since 2012. Is this what you have been doing? Do no other lawyers exist? Legal Cockroaches, find out more about this and fix accountability!" He added:"The kind of horror stories that are coming out about Manan Kumar Mishra should lead to his resignation with immediate effect. This is what would’ve happened in a functional democracy. Cockroaches are here to make a functional democracy. Mr. Mishra, time’s up!" Das pointed out:"Friends, Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra’s Bar Council of India spent 14 CRORES on meetings and conferences in just one year. Today, he had to withdraw a portion of his outrageous order on NALSAR students within 1 hour. So where and how is this 14 crores being spent? 12 crores was also spent on travel and accommodation. But what has been the result? If Mr. Mishra is capable of issuing such a draconian order against young students, then what welfare has he been doing for young lawyers and law schools? He’s been in the position since 2012 and will be till 2030. Time’s up, Mr. Mishra! #LegalCockroachesUnite and hold him accountable." 

Gazette notification states that BCI spent Rs 180.25 crore on legal education in 2024-25 in its audited financial statement. It shows an increase from Rs 46 crore spent on legal education in the previous financial year. The total income of the BCI for 2024-25 stands at Rs 234.49 crore, compared to Rs 250.32 crore in the previous year. Inspection fees remain the primary source of revenue. It contributed over Rs 130 crore. The collection from examination fees from the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) amounted to Rs 36.96 crore, lower than Rs 50.19 crore collected from two editions in the previous year. The BCI's expenditure, apart from legal education, includes Rs 14.22 crore on its activities and meetings, Rs 10.27 crore on employee benefits, and Rs 3.41 crore on establishment and other expenses. The statement reveals that examination-related expenses are recorded at Rs 2.52 crore. The financial statement shows that the surplus for the year declined to Rs 23.42 crore from RS 173.50 crore in 2023-24. It attributes this change to higher expenditure during the year. The BCI’s total assets increased to Rs 815.83 crore from Rs 752.55 crore in the previous year. Notably, investments accounts for a substantial portion, with over RS 733 crore held primarily in fixed deposits with scheduled banks. The receipts from law colleges under legal education regularisation fees rose to Rs 9.08 crore, compared to Rs 3.16 crore in the previous year. The enrolment and other fees contributed Rs 18.81 crore, while interest income amounted to Rs 44.55 crore. 

Similar audited financial statements of State Bar Councils including Bihar State Bar Council should be notified in the Gazette at the earliest.   

The BCI draws its mandate from the Advocates Act, 1961 to lay down “standards of professional conduct and etiquette,” safeguarding “the rights, privileges and interests of advocates,” and specifying standards for legal education “in consultation with the universities in India imparting such education” to the state bar councils. It is responsible for recognising universities “whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate.” But BCI has proposed to empower itself to conduct nationwide entrance examinations for law degree admissions under the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026. This draft bill also suggests raising the advocate's enrolment fee from ₹750 to ₹22,500, a massive 30%  increase. The Draft Bill gives the BCI authority to conduct entrance tests and define minimum eligibility qualifications for entry into law degree courses. The proposed Bill does not have provision for it's audit by Comptroller Auditor General. It's provision to legitimize it's election tribunal structure to deal with disputes concerning elections under the Advocates Act, 1961 is highly questionable because the election tribunal is structurally, a subordinate body under the chairman of BCI. BCI does not trust Election Commission of India like independent body to deal with election petitions under the law. 

On September 29, 2018, BCI publicly urged CJI Dipak Misra not to accept any post-retirement assignment from the govt, saying it was necessary to protect the “independence & integrity of the judiciary.” 

It's press release reads: "There is a public perception that independence of judges falls under stress and strain during the last part of the tenure of most of our Judges when the possibility of post retirement assignments and jobs by the Governments becomes a living possibility. When a Judge accepts any assignment after his retirement, fingers are raised about the bona fides of such assignment. The case of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam, former Chief Justice of India who was appointed as a Governor of Kerala after retirement as CJI, had generated much reaction. Such post- retirement assignments, for good or no reason, put a question mark on the fair discharge of judicial functions by the Judge in question during the concluding part of his tenure. This is a very grey area in which Bar expects that retiring Judges should not accept any appointments after retirement, at least for a cooling period of two years from the date of their retirement. Recently, a Joint Meeting of Bar Council of India with the representatives of State Bar Councils and High Court Bar Associations, the Co-ordination Committee of Bar Associations of Delhi, NCR has passed the most emphatic resolution in this regard.The Indian Bar has requested the High Court and Supreme Court Judges not to accept any assignment after their retirement at least for two years. In that meeting, the representatives also expressed their anguish over the role of a Judge of Supreme Court, who passed some orders with sole intent to shut the mouth of the Bar. The Hon'ble Judge had gone to the extent of issuing directions to the Law Commission to suggest amendments in Advocates' Act for demolishing the democratic structure of Bar bodies. And the Law Commission, as expected, made its suggestions destroying the independence of the Bar. (Though due to strong protest by the Lawyers, the Government did not accept the recommendations). The same Judge passed another impractical order restraining the Lawyers from giving a call of abstention, boycott or strikes even for a single day (in any eventuality). This order is in violation of a constitution Bench Judgment of apex court."

But when former CJI Ranjan Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha, the BCI issued a release dated March 18, 2020 welcoming it as a “bridge between the Legislature & Judiciary” and called the criticism of the appointment “unwarranted & premature.” Isn't this a case where someone is guilty of applying double standards in his speech? Aren't such people commonly called a hypocrite, two-faced, or equivocator because they use different rules, values, or judgments for different people or situations? 

Earlier,  on March 3, 2017, the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of a circular issued in September 2016 by the BCI, that imposed age limits on people enrolling for law degree programmes in the country. The circular barred anyone above the age of 20 from entering five-year programmes, and anyone above 30 from entering three-year programmes (with relaxations for students from communities entitled to reservations). The court’s decision came as a relief to those who had been affected by the rule, which has a tumultuous history.

 

Also read: Legal reporting in Bihar fails Breath analyser test, reveals ignorance about Legal Metrology (General) Sixth Amendment Rules, 2025 

 

Patna High Court Advocates join the nation to express solidarity with students and youth protesting at Jantar Mantar, condemn police assault 

 

Chairman, Bar Council of India "requested and directed" Chairman, Co-ordination Committee of three advocate associations of Patna High Court to recall call for boycott of court's work 

 

Bihar Bar Council Journal removes names of members of Bihar State Bar Council due to pending dispute before Central Election Tribunal  

 

Patna High Court sets aside Bihar State Bar Council, Bar Council of India (BCI) orders, restores Advocate Shahnaz Fatma on the roll of BCI

 

Did Chhattisgarh High Court question the order by Bar Council of India?

In Chandra Prakash Jangade vs. Bar Council of India & Ors. (2026) WPC No. 103 of 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma had questioned an order signed off by Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to defer the election of office bearers to the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council and asked the BCI to explain the basis of such a decision. The petitioner had sought quashing of the impugned order dated January 6, 2026 issued by the Chairman, Bar Council of India. of The present writ petition was listed urgently on the ground that the election of the office bearers of the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council as well as the Member to the Bar Council of India was scheduled to be held on January 9, 2026 but the same was deferred by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India by the order dated January 6, 2026. 

The grievance of the petitioners arose out of an order dated January 6, 2026  passed by Chairman, Bar Council of India, wherein it is stated that the Bar Council of India had received certain inputs/information from multiple sources, described as rumours, suggesting that a few members were allegedly involved in corrupt practices, including horse-trading, and that there was an apprehension that such persons may get elected as office bearers by adopting corrupt, illegal and unethical means, thereby undermining the fairness and purity of the electoral process. BCI had decided to constitute an Inquiry Committee headed by a former Judge of a High Court with two Senior Advocates as its members, directing the Committee to submit its report to the Bar Council of India within a period of ten days.

The petitioner had submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Chairman, Bar Council of India to further delay the election process. 

The High Court at Bilaspur had pointed out that State Bar Councils are statutory bodies and cannot function indefinitely without elected office-bearers. 

In it's 5-page long order dated January 9, 2026, the Court had observed:"4 At this stage, a bare perusal of the impugned order prima facie reveals that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. No specific instance, material, or identifiable act of malpractice has been referred to in the order so as to justify the extreme step of deferring a duly notified election process. While the objective of maintaining purity of elections is undoubtedly laudable, any interference with an ongoing or scheduled electoral process must rest on cogent material and demonstrable necessity. Elections to statutory bodies form the backbone of democratic governance and cannot be lightly deferred, particularly when such elections are already overdue. Any decision to postpone elections must therefore be informed by transparency, fairness, and proportionality, and must be supported by tangible material rather than mere apprehensions or unverified information."

Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh in a case from Gamhariya, Madhepura, reason was not recorded for refusing anticipatory bail

In Buchiya Devi & Ors The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi passed a 5-page long order dated August 10, 2026 found that order by Justice Prabhat Kuamr Singh of Patna High Court refusing anticipatory bail lacked reason. 

Supreme Court concluded:"6. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it lacks reasons. In fact, this Court in the case of Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar alias Polia, 2020 2 SCC 118, has clearly held that judicial orders must record the reasons and the factora that weighed with the Court either in granting or refusing bail, the said element is conspicuously absent in the instant case namely in the impugned order. Only on the ground of nature of offence, the prayer for bail has been rejected. In fact, appellants claim to be residing separately from that of their son. The said issue is not being examined by this Court and it is for the jurisdictional trial Court to examine the same after full-fledged trial. In fact, this Court while issuing notice in the present petition had granted an interim protection from any coercive steps being taken against the appellants subject to their cooperation with the investigation and no material is placed to demonstrate that appellants have refused to cooperate with the investigation. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Appellants are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Investigating Officer (IO) may deem fit to impose and also on the condition that appellant would appear before the IO for investigation as and when called and they shall also appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason."

In Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458, the Supreme Court laid down that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.

Earlier, in Buchiya Devi & Ors The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh had passed a 2-page long order dated November 15, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"6. Considering the nature of accusation and the fact that victim is still traceless, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is refused." The petitioners had approached teh High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on March 22, 2023, when daughter of the informant went out of the house to depose in connection with Gamhariya P. S. Case No. 57 of 2017, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, kidnapped her. The counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there was specific accusation against these petitioners of kidnapping the daughter of informant, who was still traceless. The counsel for the petitioners had submitted petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case.  

The appellants were arraigned as accused in FIR No.35 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 365 IPC. They were before the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail after their prayer has been rejected by Justice Singh of the High Court and the trial court. 

The Supreme Court noticed that omnibus allegations is made against the appellants viz., they have abducted the victim-Rakhi Kumari who was married to accused no.2 (Subhash Mandal), namely, the son of Appellant Nos.1 and 3 and husband of Appellant No.2 and it is also alleged that during the subsistence of the marriage with the victim-Rakhi Kumari, Appellant Nos.1 and 3 in connivance with Appellant No.2 had performed the marriage with accused No.1 and as such the victim had lodged several cases and while she was proceeding to depose in the said cases, she had been abducted and her whereabouts are not known till date. 5. The role attributed to the appellants seems that Rakhi Kumari (victim) who was married to Subhash Mandal was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws and from February 20, 2023 she went missing and complainant suspected that her husband Subhash Mandal and his family members including the other co-accused had abducted her with intent to eliminate her.

Besides Supreme Court's decision in Mahipal's case, the Supreme Court's judgement in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.

In Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.

In State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors couldbe. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.

In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.

In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89, the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."

In Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501, it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the
accused. 

The same view has been taken in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559.

  

Justices Bibek Chaudhuri, Rana Vikram Singh set aside judgement by trial court Bhojpur, acquits the convicts

In Balmiki Rai vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh delivered a 9-page long judgement dated August 12, 2026, wherein, concluded:"...12....there is absolutely no evidence against the accused persons and they were wrongly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. 13. Thus, the judgement of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII Court, Bhojpur at Arrah, in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2013, arising out of Sahar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2011, is set aside. 14. The instant appeal is allowed on contest. 15. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. The appellant, namely, Balmiki Rai, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 949 of 2019, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 17. The appellants, namely, Ram Bhusuan Ray @Ram Bhushan Rai, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 597 of 2019 and Dinesh Rai, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 806 of 2019, are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Since they are on bail, they are discharged from their bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged from their liabilities under the bail bonds." The judgement was authored by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri. The case arose out of a Sahar PS. Case of 2011 from Bhojpur

The trial judge had placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 271. It is held in the said judgement that if an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the Court. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. He also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. 10. Even if an offence is committed within the four corners of a house and such offence is an offence of murder, the neighbouring people must have the opportunity to know about the incident. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not think it necessary to even examine any neighbouring people to ascertain the factual circumstances that allegedly took place in the night of December 8, 2011.

The case of the prosecution that the daughter of P.W. 2 was physically and mentally tortured as she failed to give birth to a child. Such incident of torture went on for a long period of five years. During this period, neither the victim nor his father or other family members took any legal step against her husband and other matrimonial relations but remain silent till her disappearance. It is also the case of the prosecution that the informant and the relatives of the victim came to know that the body of the victim was taken to some unknown place by the accused persons. None of the said villagers come to depose in support of the prosecution case. 

Against a common judgement and order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2013, arising out of Sahar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII Court, Bhojpur at Arrah, convicted the appellants, Balmiki Rai and Dinesh Rai for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life as well as rigorous imprisonment for four year with fine and in the same trial, the appellant Ram Bhushan Ray @ Ram Bhushan Rai was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine, the appellants filed separate appeals. Since the appeals assailed the common judgement and order of conviction and sentence, the High Court heard and disposed the appeals by passing the judgement.

The judgement recorded that December 8, 2011, i.e., after about 9 years of her marriage, the informant got a news that his daughter was murdered by her husband and father-in-law. It observed: "There is absolutely no evidence how the victim was allegedly murdered. None of the witnesses are the eye-witness of the occurrence. Not a single villager of the matrimonial home of the deceased was made a witness to ascertain as to how the victim had met with an unnatural death. The body of the victim was missing. It is stated by the witnesses that accused Balmiki Rai, Dinesh Rai and Ram Bhushan Rai concealed the dead-body of the deceased to cause any evidence of the commission of the offence of murder to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment in the absence of any such evidence. The learned Trial Judge held the appellants guilty on the strength of special knowledge of the accused persons under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is needless to say that Section 106 comes into play only when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person. It has not been proved as to whether the daughter of the informant was murdered or she committed suicide at her matrimonial home or she disappeared. Only because she was not found, the Court cannot presume by placing burden upon the husband, father-in-law and a co-villager that the deceased was murdered and her dead-body was concealed to cause disappearance of evidence."

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha sets aside cognizance order by Special Judge Vigilance, Patna in a corruption case against Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department

In Shardendu Bhushan vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 8-page long judgement dated August 11, 2026, wherein, he set aside and quashed the impugned cognizance order dated June 26, 2019 with all its consequential proceedings in view of Supreme Court order dated July 22, 2024 as passed in Shivendra Nath Verma vs. Union of India and the provisions of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent no. 2 is the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar. Arvind Kumar was the counsel for the Vigilance. 

The petitioner had approached the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated June 26, 2019 as passed by Special Judge Vigilance Patna in Special Case No. 33 of 2015 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01 of 2015 dated June 30, 2015 for the offences registered under sections 13 (2), r/w, 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 through which the Special Judge (Vigilance) Patna took cognizance against the petitioner by violating the section 19 (1) b of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 in most mechanical way. 

As per prosecution case, petitioner who was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, while functioning as a public servant, had acquired wealth through corrupt and illegal means by abusing his official position, and had amassed movable as well as immovable assets in his own name and in the names of his wife and children, which were substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is alleged that petitioner joined the government service as an Assistant Engineer on December 13 2007 and continued in the capacity thereafter. During the relevant period, his total income from salary was assessed at Rs. 36,00,000/-, whereas his expenditure under various heads was assessed at Rs. 17,03,405/-, leaving a likely saving of Rs. 18,96,595/-. However, against the said likely savings, he was alleged to have acquired movable and immovable assets and made investments valued at approximately Rs. 2,77,79,000/- in his own name as well as in the names of his wife and children. It was also alleged that he had made substantial investments in a business being run in the name of his wife with the intention of routing his alleged illegal earnings. Accordingly, the total value of the movable and immovable assets was stated to be Rs. 2,77,79,000/-, which, as alleged in the FIR, was substantially higher than his likely savings of Rs. 18,96,595/- and was, therefore, treated as disproportionate to his known sources of income. 

The counsel for the petitioner raised single issue in support of his submission that cognizance was bad in eyes of law as same was taken in absence of sanction order. It was submitted that the legal provisions as available under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 categorically suggest that
no cognizance can be taken without sanction and relied upon legal report ofSupreme Court as passed in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.

This submission was not disputed by the counsel appearing for the Vigilance. The counsel also referred to Court's order dated July 22, 2024 as passed in Shivendra Nath Verma vs. Union of India arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12708 of 2023. 6. It was accepted and admitted at the Bar that the competent authority has granted sanction vide order dated July 27, 2022. 

Justice Jha relied on the paragraph no. 102 of the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, which reads as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of nay offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 

Supreme Court stays order by Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sourendra Pandey in Ircon case

In Ircon International Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar through Commissioner of State Tax, Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court has passed an order dated August 10, 2026, wherein, it stayed the operation of the impugned order, pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition. The matters are listed for September 11, 2026. 

In Ircon International Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar through Commissioner of State Tax, Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's 's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sourendra Pandey delivered a 73-page long judgement dated February 25, 2026. The judgement concluded: "....while we find that with the fabrication of structural steel, the distinct constituent, elements and structure are incorporated so as to make it a functional utility. Once the structural steel is transformed with the fabrication and installation/erection in terms of the works contract, it passes the final tests of marketability. The final test of marketability must be conducted keeping in view the nature of the works contract and the value attached with the same. 89. In ultimate analysis, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 of the Assessing Officer (respondent no. 2) and the notice of demand dated 25.01.2020 (Annexure '7 series'). 90. These writ applications have no merit. These are dismissed accordingly, however, there will be no order as to cost." The judgement was authored by Justice Praasd. 

Justice Prasad observed:"....we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer-Respondent No. 2 has rightly held that the petitioner had got the assembly erection, launching, fabrication work through the sub-contractor for which the petitioner paid sum of Rs.172,15,39,774.61/-. It is recorded in the impugned order that the representative of the petitioner admitted that these expenses were incurred in course of conversion of structural steel into steel structure by fabrication work. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (1993) 1 SCC 364 (supra), paragraph '47' quoted hereinabove, we take a view that the cost of transportation launching and installation at the site are the part of the cost of steel structure which have been transferred in course of execution of works contract, therefore, respondent no. 2 has not committed any error in taking a view that the claim of the petitioner for deduction of Rs. 1,72,15,39,774.61/- is liable to be rejected. 88. The contentions raised with regard to the twin tests of transformation and marketability are also getting satisfied from the materials on the record. To us, it appears that the fact that the petitioner has undertaken to do the complete works in the contract and i.e. in the case of the works contract for which the petitioner is paid would make it clear that the ultimate transfer of the property in goods occurred when the goods were incorporated in the works. In the case of Quippo Energy Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the tests of transformation in the facts of the said case whether the imported gensets and power packs were two different commodities with distinct constituent elements, structure and functional utility." He referred to the judgments in Quippo Energy Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmadabad-II (2025) 152 GSTR 26 and Gannon Dunkerley and Co. & Ors. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 364.

The seven writ applications were listed together for hearing. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners as well as the State have jointly submitted that the three writ applications, i.e. CWJC No. 3600 of 2020, CWJC No. 11625 of 2019, and CWJC No. 1716 of 2023, are required to be heard together as they involved identical questions for adjudication. The counsels have pointed out the order dated February  17, 2023, wherein the joint submissions of the parties have been recorded by the then learned coordinate Bench. So far as the other four writ applications (CWJC No. 3800 of 2019, CWJC No. 13258 of 2019, CWJC No. 13286 of 2019 and CWJC No. 13854 of 2019) are concerned, they do not involve the same legal issues but were ordered to be listed next below the above three cases. It was submitted that the fate of those four writ applications should depend upon the result of the three writ applications. Therefore, the High Court considered the other four writ applications together. 

After tracing Rajnath Sharma, CBI to inquire about Sanoj Kumar, in a Habeas Corpus petition from Bihiya, Bhojpur, Patna High Court transfers Bihiya's Mistri case to CBI

In Gauri Shankar Ram vs. The State of Bihar through the chief Secretary, Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 34-page long judgement dated August 7, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....we direct transfer of the investigation of Bihiya P.S. Case No. 296 of 2025 to the CBI (Respondent No. 10) forthwith. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, shall ensure that all documents and materials pertaining to the present case are handed over to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Patna, within one week from today." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad.  

The petitioner, an elderly victim (Gauri Shankar Ram) had approached the High Court seeking a fair investigation in the matter of alleged assault and unlawful detention of his son Sanoj Kumar by the Excise Police Officials, Jagdishpur in the District of Bhojpur on August 13, 2025. Since then, the whereabouts of his son is not known. The petitioner has alleged police inaction, bias and delayed investigation on the part of the local police. He has ventured into demonstrating before this Court by tangible materials that the local investigation is compromised and it lacks neutrality because the persons involved are the Excise Police Officials of the State. 

The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities, namely,  the Director General of police (DGP), Bihar, Inspector General (IG), Patna, the District Magistrate (DM), Bhojpur, (Arrah), Superintendent of Police (SP), Bhojpur (Arrah), the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Jagdishpur, Bhojpur, the Station House Officer (SHO), Bihiya PS, Bhojpur, the Station House Officer (SHO), Jagdishpur PS, Bhojpur,  the Excise Inspector /In-charge Excise Dept. Jagdishpur, Bhojpur and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to produce the detenu Sanoj Kumar, the petitioner’s son) before the High Court, to pass suitable orders ensuring the protection of life and personal liberty of the detenu and to direct an independent and impartial investigation preferably by Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) or any other independent agency nto the raid and detention of the detenu. The habeas corpus petition has prayed for preservation and production of call detail records (CDRs), including location data of the detenu and the officers involved in the raid and detention, along with CCTV footage of the site of raid and concerned Police Station. The petitioner has also sought appropriate order for grant of compensation to the Petitioner for the illegal detention, if so, established after inquiry.  

The case of the petitioner is that Sanoj Kumar, one of the four sons of the petitioner was working as a centring mistri at construction sites. On August 13, 2025, he went to his work as usual and in the evening he spoke to the petitioner over phone in a normal manner regarding purchasing certain items for his child. On the same day at about 6:35 PM, the petitioner’s younger son, Rakesh Kumar, received a phone call from mobile no. 9625335329, wherein Sanoj Kumar informed that he had been apprehended by the police on allegations of consuming liquor near Kali Mandir at Dharahara Musahar Toli. Thereafter, Sanoj Kumar, the detenue again called back and stated that police were beating him mercilessly, thereafter, the call got disconnected. Subsequent attempts by the family to contact him failed as the phone was found switched off. The petitioner and his family approached Bihiya Police Station and also went to Jagdishpur Police Station. He was informed that several persons have been detained and were later on released after interrogation but no satisfactory information was given about his son. Since then, the whereabouts of the son of the petitioner is not known. On not getting any satisfactory information from the police about his son/detenu, on August 14, 2025, the petitioner lodged a complaint with Bihiya Police Station seeking to trace the whereabouts of his missing son. A police case, being Bihiya P.S. Case No. 296 of 2025, was registered. 

The judgement reads: "27. The CBI (Respondent No. 10) is directed to take charge of the investigation of the case forthwith, with utmost urgency, keeping in mind that a young boy who was in the custody of the Excise police team of Jagdishpur has gone missing and his whereabouts is not known since evening of 13.08.2025. The allegations are that of his having been brutally assaulted by the Excise Police officials, whereafter he is not seen. The petitioner apprehends that his son has been done to death and his dead body has been made to disappear. 28. Needless to say that in course of investigation, the CBI would be within it's right to interrogate the police officials who were connected with the investigation of the case, in order to gather the entire facts and circumstances of the case in which the case was registered and remained under investigation without any significant progress. Such investigation would be independent. The Director, C.B.I. shall constitute a team of reputed offices to investigate the matter and submit a report within a reasonable time frame. 29. No part of the observations of this Court shall be construed as any opinion of this Court on the subject matter of the investigation." 

The case will be listed again on September 11, 2026 at 2.15 PM. The CBI has been directed to submit the action taken report to the High Court on or before the next date. Nilanjan Chatterjee is the counsel  for the CBI. 

Relying on the decision of a 3-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in K.V. Rajendran vs. Supt. of Police CBCID South Zone Chennai and Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 480, Justice Prasad observed:"22. On going through the entire materials available on the record, this Court has no iota of doubt that since lodging of the FIR on 14.08.2025, the State investigating agency did not show any urgency to investigate the matter. The involvement was that of the Excise Police Officials, the allegations were of causing brutal assault upon the son of the informant, rendering him unable to walk. The materials placed before this Court would reveal that the investigating agency did not think it just and proper to record the statement of the local witnesses within a reasonable time. Statement of the material witnesses were not got recorded before the Magistrate and only after hearing in the matter proceeded, the Officer-in-Charge, Bihiya Police Station, wrote a letter dated 14.05.2026 to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition, Ara seeking his permission to get the polygraph test of the suspects done. In its letter seeking permission from the Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, the Station House Officer, Bihiya Police Station has recorded that the accused persons were trying to conceal the evidences. It is evident that for about nine months from the date of lodging of the FIR, no meaningful step was taken to interrogate the suspects and collect other scientific inputs. 23. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that in this case, the very credibility of the State investigating agency is at stake. Inaction writs large and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that because Excise Police Officials were involved in the case, therefore, the investigation of the case has been compromised and it has suffered bias, is based on reasons to belief, therefore, this Court is persuaded to agree with the submissions on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner is himself present in Court and has submitted that a fair investigation into this matter may only be possible through an independent agency such as C.B.I."

Supreme Court's decision reads:"“13. ….. the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having “a fair, honest and complete investigation”, and particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies….”.  

Justice Prasad judgement reads: "24. While this Court understands that transfer of an investigation from State agency to the CBI need not be done in a routine manner and the constitutional power of this Court in
directing CBI to conduct the investigation in a case must be exercised in exceptional circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case would fall in the category of those rare and exceptional cases in which the lack of confidence in the State investigating agency has arisen for the obvious, tangible reasons. Two of the accused being ASIs were in a position to influence the investigation, they were posted at the same place, therefore well connected with the police officials of Bihiya and Jagdishpur police station, they did not allow the investigation to proceed. They kept the mobile phone of the detenue with themselves for several days without disclosure. The I.O. of this case neither seized the mobile phones of the suspect nor sent the mobile of the detenue to F.S.L. for scientific examination. In this case the investigation has not proceeded in a proper direction. Bias on the part of the State investigating agency may be clearly deduced from their inaction."

The prosecution case is based on the written application of Gauri Shankar Ram, the petitioner). In his written application, the petitioner has stated that on August 13, 2025 at about 6:35 PM, he got a call on his mobile no. 9625335329 from mobile no. 9931845367 wherein his son Sanoj Kumar informed that he had been apprehended by the police on allegations of consuming liquor near Kali Mandir at Dharahara Musahar Toli. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to contact his son on the same mobile number but he failed as the phone was found switched off. The petitioner thereafter started searching his son but could not find any trace then they went to Dharhara Mushahar Toli where they got to know from the villagers that a few boys were apprehended by police who were released after interrogation. It is also alleged that at the said place, the petitioner found Super Splendor motorcycle bearing registration no. BR03AF7624, Engine No. JA07ABM9B06358 which is registered in the name of his son Sanoj Kumar. On not finding any information about his son Sanoj Kumar, on August 14, 2025, the petitioner lodged the FIR at Bihiya Police Station. 

On August 14, 2025, the motorcycle of the detenu was found in an abandoned condition near Dharahara Musahar Toli under the jurisdiction of Bihiya Police Station, which was later on reported to the police. After taking photographs of the vehicle, the same was handed over to the petitioner with an instruction to take it back after getting a duplicate key made. It is stated that the detenu was in possession of two mobile phones with active numbers 9931845367 and 7761814166, one of which was an Oppo handset, both of which subsequently became unreachable. The mobile number 9931845367 had its last call detail record (CDR) location traced to Jagdishpur Police Station. Upon inquiry by the Investigating Officer of the case at Jagdishpur Police Station in the morning of 24.08.2025, one of the members of Jagdishpur Police Station surrendered the handset associated with number 9931845367 to the I.O. in presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur but the second mobile phone remained unrecovered till date. 

Notably, certain eyewitnesses informed the petitioner that his son was brutally assaulted by police personnel, rendered him unable to walk and was even denied drinking water. It has been stated that the detenu was dragged with a cloth (gamcha) tied around his neck and was forcibly taken away in a police vehicle. 

The petitioner asserted that the witnesses denied to record their statements before the authorities due to fear of police. It is stated that a CCTV camera installed on a private premise near Dharahara Musahar Toli had captured the incident wherein the detenu was forcefully and brutally taken away by the police. The video clearly depicts two police vehicles arriving one after another, one carrying police officials in civil dress and the other with police officers in uniform. The police personnel are seen detaining several individuals, including the detenu, and subjecting them to physical assault. The detenu is physically dragged by the neck with a cloth (gamcha) and taken away in one of the police vehicles. Both vehicles then departed together in a direction other than towards the police station. It is the case of the petitioner that a government CCTV camera is also situated at the place of the incident but even after repeated requests by the petitioner and his relatives, the same was neither secured nor produced by police, raising serious apprehension of suppression of material evidence. 

On August 17, 2025, when the petitioner and his relatives visited Bihiya Police Station to inquire about the progress of investigation and to seek information regarding the whereabouts of the detenu, the police personnel misbehaved and abused them. The petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Castes community, along with his family members, including women, was subjected to caste based and derogatory remarks. The police also directed them not to visit the police station again. It is stated that in the meantime, the two police officers involved in the case were also transferred. 

The petitioner has placed on record copies of his representations submitted to the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, the National Human Rights Commission and the Bihar State Human Rights Commission. In all these representations, the petitioner brought to the notice of all these authorities that his son has been subjected to illegal detention, custodial violence and blatant violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

This writ application came up for consideration for the first time on May 13 2026. On the said date, the High Court, having noticed that there were serious allegations of involvement of the police officials, passed an order. The order reads: “In the nature of allegations made in the writ petition, it is desirable that the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Arrah shall personally supervise this case and submit a report to this Court as to the action taken so far on the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner. It is expected that those Police officials against whom the allegations are coming, shall be kept away from the investigation of the case 2. Let a comprehensive affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks from today. 3. Let the order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur (Arrah) immediately. 4. Learned counsel for the State shall also inform the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Arrah regarding the order passed by this Court. 5. List this matter after summer vacation i.e. on 17.06.2026.” The writ application was taken up for consideration after a month, but in the meantime, no counter-affidavit was filed. 

The High Court took note of the conduct of the respondent in its order dated June 17, 2026. On the prayer of AC to AAG-13, the Court granted one week’s final time to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit by Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur. On June 24, 2026, the High Court noticed the stand of the Superintendent of Police, Ara., the respondent no.5. The Court's order dated June 24, 2026 recorded: “7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5, i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Arrah. This Court finds that the Superintendent of Police, Arrah has admitted in the counter affidavit that during investigation of the case, it came into light that the Excise Department, Bhojpur had conducted a raid on the alleged date and time and there, the raiding team had arrested some persons. It is stated that according to the Excise raid team, all the arrested people were released, the raiding team did not report the fact to the Bihiya Police that when the raiding team along with the arrested people reached near Chaurasta, one arrested person jumped from the jeep and fled away. 8. This Court finds that S.P., Arrah has given a clean chit to the Bhojpur Police and has stated that the allegations were made pertaining to the police officers of the Excise Department of Bhojpur, which comes under the jurisdiction of Superintendent of Excise, Bhojpur. It is stated that I.O. had collected and observed the CCTV footage near the place of occurrence at main road but no clear visible photo of the vehicle or the person involved could be discerned from the footage. On the recommendation of Dy.SP, Jagdishpur, polygraph test of all the raiding members of the Department who had conducted the raid on 13.08.2025 at Dharhara Musahar Toli has been carried out and according to the S.H.O., Bihiya, some of the members of the raiding team were made suspects in the case. Their names are mentioned in paragraph ‘15’ of the counter affidavit as under:-
(i) S.I. Excise Department Deeraj Kumar
(ii) ASI Excise department Raju Kumar
(iii) Home guard 132485 Dharmendra Paswan
(iv) Home guard Umesh Kumar Yadav 132627
(v) Home guard Raju Kumar
(vi) Driver Raju Kumar Singh
(vii) Driver Vikash Kumar.
9. Prima-facie, this Court finds that the matter which came to be registered by way of an FIR as back as on 14.08.2025 has not progressed with utmost expedition. The whereabout of the son of the informant is not known and according to him, his son was brutally assaulted by police and he was not in a position to move. More than ten months have gone past. The members of the raiding team have not been arrested and interrogated. The Inspector, Excise who is party Respondent No. 9 has chosen not to file any counter affidavit in this case. 10. In such circumstance, we are of the opinion that this Court must consider transferring the investigation to an independent agency. The D.M., Bhojpur, the S.P., Bhojpur as also the Excise Inspector/In-charge, Excise Department, Jagdishpur would be required to explain their conduct in sitting over the matter which is only helping in hushing up the whole case by efflux of time. This Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a mute spectator. 11. This Court directs that D.M., Bhojpur, S.P., Bhojpur, Station House Officer, Bihiya Police Station, Bhojpur and the Excise Inspector/In-charge, Excise Department, Jagdishpur be present either in person with the records to answer the queries of the Court or they may choose to be present through virtual/online mode on 30th June, 2026. After interacting with these officers who are respondents in the writ application, this Court would proceed to pass final order in the writ application.  12. Considering the sensitivity of the matter as it relates to violation of human rights as well, we are of the view that a copy of this order be communicated to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna and the Excise Commissioner, Bihar. If they have any views/opinion on the issues, they may also choose to inform this Court by physical or virtual/online mode.”

The High Court observed: "7. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 30.06.2026, this Court noticed that despite the specific order of this Court to produce the records, the records were not produced."

The High Court passed two orders dated June 30, 2026. The Order No. 5 reads: “Despite order dated 24.06.2026 passed by this Court contained in paragraphs ‘11’ and ‘12’, the records have not been produced. Even as some of the officers have joined online, but in absence of the records, the Court cannot proceed. 2. The learned Advocate General is present. 3. It appears that the opportunity given to the officers to choose the online hearing mode is not being taken seriously. 4. In the circumstances, this Court directs that all the  officers mentioned in paragraph ‘11’ of the order shall be present in person in post luncheon session with all the records. 5. The matter will be taken up further today at 02:15 PM.” 

The Order No. 6 dated June 30, 2026 reads: “We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State and have also interacted with the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, Superintendent of Police, Ara and the S.H.O. Jagdishpur Police Station, Bhojpur. 2. In the order dated 24.06.2026, this Court had extracted in detail the facts of the case and the reliefs prayed for on behalf of the petitioner. This Court had noted how the petitioner kept on running from one office to another, reminding the authorities of the State that his son had been brutally assaulted by the Excise police officials whereafter his whereabout is not known. He also informed that some local persons who were afraid to make statement in front of the police had informed him that his son was so brutally assaulted that he was unable to move and that he was pulled by tying him with a towel in his neck by a red light vehicle. Paragraph ‘5’ of the order dated 24.06.2026 reads as under:-“5. Vide Annexure ‘P/2’, the petitioner further
made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Arrah wherein he has stated that despite a lapse of 20 days, his son had not been recovered. He had gone to the Excise Police Station but no satisfactory answer could be given to him. Some persons informed him that his son was brutally assaulted by police, he was not in a position to move and he was pulled by tying him with a towel in his neck and he was being pulled by a red light vehicle. He also asserted that there was a camera in a private house in which it is apparently showing that his son was being put in a government vehicle. He requested for a CBI investigation of the case.”  3. After noticing the kind of stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the S.P. Ara, when we found that the investigation revealed that at least seven persons of the Excise police team were suspects in this case and that the investigation is not progressing with all sensitiveness and sincerity, this Court decided to call upon the officers such as, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and the S.H.O./ Investigating Officer. 4. The S.H.O. Jagdishpur Police Station has placed the case diary. He has informed that investigation of the case was initially handed over to SI Bimlesh Kumar on 14.08.2025. After taking charge of the investigation, he  had recorded the statement of the informant and visited the place of occurrence. He had also recorded the statement of some of the witnesses. It transpired in course of investigation that the boy used to go to Dharhara, Musahar Toli to consume liquor. On the date of occurrence, five persons came in civil dress and they had taken away five boys from the said Dharhara, Musahar Toli. The witnesses informed that the persons in civil dress were Excise police officials. Father of the victim informed that he had received mobile call from his victim son at 6:35 P.M, his son had informed that Excise police officers had arrested him. The I.O. obtained call detail reports and tower locations of the mobile phones of the victim boy. He found that the victim boy had made a call from his mobile on the mobile phone of his father at 6:35 P.M and 6:43 P.M. The I.O. also found that out of two mobiles of the victim one of the mobile’s tower location was that of the Excise Police Station, Jagdishpur.
5. The S.H.O. has further informed that it has come in the case diary that when he visited the Excise Police Station and inquired from Sub-Inspector of Police Rajkumar and Sub-Inspector of Police Dheeraj Kumar Singh then they stated that both of them had conducted a raid there and arrested 4-5 persons but all were left there. They did not say anything about Sanoj Kumar (Victim). 6. At this stage, this Court has been informed that on the very next day i.e. 23.08.2025, Rajkumar and Dheeraj Kumar Singh both the SIs of Excise Police Station, Jagdishpur visited Jagdishpur police station and handed over one OPPO company Android mobile with IMEI Nos. 860150061683670, 860150061683662 which belonged to the victim boy Sanoj Kumar. The I.O. prepared the seizure list of the mobile phone. However, it appears that the said mobile phone has not been sent to FSL for the forensic examination. 7. This Court has been further informed that in their subsequent statements the SI Raj Kumar and Dheeraj Kumar Singh disclosed that in Dharhara, Musahar Toli, on the allegation of consumption of liquor, five persons were arrested, their breath analysing test was done, out of them, two were found negative so they were left to go. Rest three persons were put in the vehicle, they were taken to Bihiya Chaurasta but because Bihiya Chaurasta was having a traffic jam so the vehicle moved towards highway from the Chaurasta. At this stage, it has been disclosed by Dheeraj Kumar Singh that one person sitting in the vehicle dickey opened the dickey and fled away. It has been further disclosed that the mobile phone of that person was taken in possession by Dheeraj Kumar Singh and that mobile remained with him which he was handing over after the direction of the senior officers. He has also stated that because he was afraid so he had not disclosed this occurrence to anyone. 8. The S.H.O. submits that the investigation so far has disclosed that the victim boy was arrested by Excise police team and he was put in the dickey whereafter the police vehicle moved but then the victim boy is said to have fled away but the fact is that this story has been brought into existence by the two SIs of excise police only at a belated stage and when they were asked to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the police then only they came to provide the mobile phone of the victim boy to the I.O.
9. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Ara has submitted that he is supervising the matter and is obliged to unearth/ unravel the whole case. He will not leave any stone unturned to get the truth behind the
occurrence and very soon, he is going to take some steps which may prove fruitful in unveiling of the entire case. 10. We place on record our displeasure on the manner in which the first I.O. and then the S.H.O. of the Jagdishpur Police Station have conducted the investigation. They are moving slowly and slowly for some time giving an impression to this Court that they are only helping the accused persons as even when they have been found suspects, the Investigating Agency is not able to find out the truth from them. It is clear that the victim boy has gone missing after his arrest and when he was in the custody of the Excise police officials. Whether he fled away or something else happened to him is a matter which is required to be revealed keeping into consideration the entire materials which may come in course of interrogation of the persons who are the suspects in this case. The Supervising Authority such as SDPO, Jagdhishpur and SP, Bhojpur at Ara have perhaps not devoted much time to this case. We will take a final view of the matter later on.” 

The High Court's Order No. 6 dated June 30, 2026 took note of the revelations made by the S.H.O. The Court clearly recorded that the two S.Is. of Excise Police came out with a disclosure that the victim boy was arrested by Excise Police team and he was put in the dickey but then they came out with a statement that as the police vehicle moved, the victim boy fled away. This story has been brought into existence only at a belated stage. 

The Court recorded that it found that only after the case progressed after intervention of the Court, the I.O. moved to some extent under compulsion. The first I.O. and the then S.H.O. of the Jagdishpur Police Station have not conducted the investigation properly and they gave an impression to the Court that they were only helping the accused persons even as they had been found suspects. 

The judgement recorded that in its subsequent hearing of the case on July 2, 2026, the High Court was informed that after taking into custody the six suspects, the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur had interrogated them and in course of interrogation, it was revealed that the victim, Sanoj Kumar, was taken into custody along with Manish Yadav and Mira Yadav. The Excise Police Officers who had been arrested and interrogated were changing their statements. It was revealed in course of interrogation that there was a scuffle with the victim, Sanoj, and the private driver who was driving the Excise Police vehicle, he had put a towel around his neck and he was being pulled up. What prima facie transpired to the Court have been taken note of in the order dated July 2, 2026. 

The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 02.07.2026 reads: “5. This Court has been informed that out of seven suspects who are named in paragraph ‘8’ of the order dated 24.06.2026, the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur has taken into custody six of them. One suspect, namely, Driver Surendra Kumar Singh will be taken into custody today as the team working on it has already been deputed for this purpose. 6. At this stage, it is pointed out that in paragraph ‘15’ of the counter affidavit, the name mentioned in serial no. (v) is to be correctly read as ‘Home Guard Raju Kumar Singh’ and in serial no. (vi) the name is required to be corrected and it should be read as ‘Driver Surendra Kumar Singh’. It is also pointed out that the person named at serial no. (i) should be ‘ASI Excise Department’ and not ‘SI Excise Department’. In serial no. (ii), the correct name of the ASI Excise Department be read as ‘Raj Kumar’ in place of ‘Raju Kumar’. Learned AAG-13 submits that he will file a supplementary affidavit to this effect by tomorrow. 7. Let the supplementary affidavit be filed and taken on the record. 8. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur has informed that after taking into custody the six suspects, he has personally interrogated them. In course of interrogation, it has been revealed that the victim Sanoj Kumar was taken into custody along with Manish Yadav and Mira Yadav. The Excise Police Officers who have been arrested and interrogated by him have been changing their statements and they are making incongruous and inconsistent statements. It has also been revealed in course of interrogation that there was a scuffle with the victim Sanoj and the private Driver who was driving the Excise Police Vehicle had put a towel around his neck and he was being pulled up. It is Driver Vikash Kumar who had put the towel around the neck of the victim. The CCTV footage preserved in a pen drive under a certificate of the owner of the device has been examined by the I.O. and this Court has been informed that from the CCTV footage, though it is not clear, but it is the statement of the Excise Police that the victim boy had fled away after opening the dickey of the vehicle. 9. At this point of time, this Court has cursorily looked at the CCTV footage. Without recording its opinion, the Court would only observe at this stage that the vehicle in which the victim boy along with other two were put into, was not an open vehicle, it was not even half-open, the vehicle seems to be a Bolero Vehicle which is fully closed from outside and unless the backside gate is opened, it would not be possible to flee away with a jump. The S.P., Bhojpur has come out with a statement before this Court that he himself finds that these Excise officials who are being interrogated are not disclosing the complete truth but his endeavour is to get the truth revealed during investigation and for this purpose, while forwarding the accused persons to the competent court today, he will be seeking remand of those persons for few days. 

Gauri Shankar Ram, the petitioner in person appeared before the High Court and addressed it. The Court had also interacted with the mother of Manish Yadav over the telephone of the S.H.O. who had connected her as the Court wanted to make everyone connected with the matter confident of getting proper treatment and security if they assist the Investigating Officer in course of investigation. The S.H.O and the S.P. were also of the prima-facie view that the persons who would have been most material like Manish Yadav and Mira Yadav are perhaps afraid of coming out with the truth which they have seen. They have agreed to go to the house of both Mira Yadav and Manish Yadav in order to instill confidence in the family and those witnesses and will always make endeavour to ensure that those witnesses are provided appropriate security/protection under the Vulnerable Witness Scheme.

Gauri Shankar Ram has informed the High Court that during last few months, several persons have approached him for hushing up the case and he is being pressurized not to pursue this matter further. The statement has been made in presence of the AG and AAG-13 as also the S.P. and other police officials. 

Justice Prasad observed: "This Court finds that a poor person coming from the lowest strata of the society is, on the one hand, not getting whereabout of his son and apprehends that his son has been done to death by the Excise Police Officials and they have made the dead body to disappear and thereafter indulged in concealing the entire materials, but at the same time, he is afraid of his own protection. The informant is a vulnerable witness and the S.P. Bhojpur agrees to this that from today itself, he along with his family will be given full protection. The S.P., Bhojpur shall also find out as to who were those persons who approached the informant to persuade him to hush up the case. Such persons are liable to be identified and put under appropriate provisions of law. This is the case in which the Investigating Agency as well as this Court has to ensure that a person who is standing at the lowest pedestal gets justice. If the Investigating Agency and the Court fail to ensure that the truth is revealed and the petitioner gets justice, it will be the failure of the entire justice delivery system. 12. This Court expects that the S.P., Bhojpur shall go all out with his endeavours to get the truth revealed at the earliest opportunity. 13. This Court makes it clear that for the present, the Court is concentrating on the recovery of the victim boy and the discovery of truth behind his missing for last ten months. At the end, the conduct of the Investigating Officers who were deputed in this case but they failed to proceed with sensitiveness and sincerity remain open to be considered." 

The case was again heard on July 7, 2026 and the Court passed an order. The petitioner's counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudipta Lenka vs. State of Odisha and Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 527 to submit that in an appropriate case, if the Court is satisfied that on account of the accused being powerful and influential, the investigation has not proceeded in a proper direction or it has been biased, the Court may direct transfer of the case and further investigation through the CBI.

The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 to submit that the ultimate aim of a fair and proper investigation in criminal jurisprudence is the twin purpose:- Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law; secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to bring out the truth of a case before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

In Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677, the Supreme Court, having noticed that there were allegations against the police personnel, took a view that the interest of justice would be best served if the case is registered and investigated by an independent agency like CBI. It was also submitted that in this case, almost one year is going to expire from the date of missing of the victim boy from the police custody, he was lastly seen in the police vehicle after he was put in the dickey, the local witnesses are though not coming forward due to fear of police to make statements but by entrusting the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI, even those witnesses may be encouraged to come forward and depose as to the condition of the victim boy which they had seen in the hand of the police personnel. All these would be possible only if the investigation is handed over to an independent agency like CBI. 

Rajnath Sharma’s disappearance case revealed status of 256 who had escaped from police custody 

Earlier, in Dhanraj Kumar Rai vs. The State of Bihar Through Home Secretary, Government of Bihar (2023), after disposing of the case by High Court's Division Bench of Justices Chakradhari Sharan singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma vide its 28-page long order dated February 6, 2023, the High Court's Division Bench of  Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Nawneet Kumar Pandey had recorded in the order dated July 5, 023 that "38 persons out of 256 have been either arrested by the Bihar police after 26.01.2023 to 11.05.2023 or surrendered before the police. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 23.06.2023, latest status of the persons apprehended till 29.05.2023 has been given. It has been stated that from the period 11.05.2023 to 15.06.2023, 28 persons have been arrested by the police, one person has surrendered, 8 persons have been released on bail and 2 persons were killed in encounter(s) with the U.P. police." A counter affidavit dated June 23, 2023 filed, sworn by the DIG, Administration (Police Headquarter), Bihar had revealed that there were 256 accused persons who had escaped from the police custody from various places in the State of Bihar and were traceless. A list of number of persons, who, according to the police, had escaped from the police custody was brought on record by the counter affidavit. The district wise break up of the data furnished by the State police disclosing number of persons having escaped from the police custody and were still traceless was also provided in the official counter affidavit.

The district wise break up of the data furnished by the State police disclosing number of persons having escaped from the police custody and were still traceless was also provided in the official counter affidavit. The district wise break up is: Patna 68, Bhojpur 8, Buxar 3, Rohtas 4, Gaya 14, Aurangabad 2,  Nawada 3, Arwal 1, Muzaffarpur 50, Sitamadhi 7, Vaishali 1, Bettiah 13, Motihari 11, Saran 6, Siwan 6, Gopalganj 8, Darbhanga 4, Madhubani 2, Samastipur 2, Saharsa 2, Madhepura 3, Supaul 8, Katihar 1, Araria 11, Bhagalpur 2, Nawgachiye 2, Banka 2, Begusarai 2, Khagria 1, Jamui 6, Rail Jamalpur 1 and Police Adhishak Railway, Patna 2. The details regarding Nalanda, Kaimur, Jehanabad, Sheohar, Bagaha, Purnea, Kisanganj, Munger, Sheikhpura, Lakhisarai and Rail Zila Muzaffarpur are awaited.  

In its order dated February 6, 2023, the Division Bench of Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma had concluded: "26. Since, we are of the view that the investigation so far done in two cases by the State Police, namely, Kateya P.S. Case No. 189/2021 and Kateya P.S. Case No. 190/2021, does not instil confidence as their inaction is manifest and not free from doubts, we consider it desirable in the interest of justice to direct the State to transfer the Investigation of Kateya P.S. Case No. 189/2021 and Kateya P.S. Case No. 190/2021 to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 27. Accordingly, let the entire documents of the aforesaid two cases be handed over to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Patna, by 13.02.2023. 28. Before, we part with this judgment, we express our anxiety as regards the alarming number of cases in which, the persons, who have, according to the Police, escaped from the police custody and are still traceless. The Court would expect the State respondents to inform this Court as to what action(s) do they intend to undertake in respect of those cases in which the persons, who have escaped from police custody and are traceless. 29. For the said purpose, list this case on 13.03.2022 under the heading ‘To The Mentioned’ for the State to file an affidavit giving the details of proposed action. 30. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction and observation." It is apparent that even before the CBI could complete its task of tracing Raj Nath Sharma the case was disposed of. The CBI had registered the FIR on March 2, 2023 with exemplary promptness. The CBI's case was pursued by the CBI team under the leadership of Inspector Mukesh Pandey. On February 7, 2024, Dainik Bhaskar, Patna edition reported that CBI isclosed that Rajnath Sharma was killed in police custody, within one day of registering the FIR. He died because of physical assault by the police. The police had burnt his body to hide the mystery about the death of the accused. 

Notably, the case could not be pursued further in the Patna High Court because the case disposed of just one day ahead of the elevation of Justice Singh as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa. Justice Singh took oath as as the Chief Justice on February 7, 2024, from where he retired on January 19, 2025. 

Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma had passed the upon hearing the case wherein, one Raj Nath Sharma was admittedly arrested by the police personnel of Kateya Police Station in the District of Gopalganj on 07.06.2021 from his house, in connection with the Kateya P.S. Case No. 189 of 2021, registered for an offence punishable Section 302/31 of the Indian Penal Code. He was not produced before the concerned Magistrate soon after his arrest. 

In its order dated April 26, 2023, the Division Bench led by Justice Singh observed: "It is unfortunate that the State has not bothered to comply with this Court’s order dated 06.02.2023, whereby it was directed to inform this Court by way of affidavit as to what action did the State intend to take in respect of such cases in which persons who have escaped from judicial custody are traceless." The bench included Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma. 

Although belated will the High Court inquire about the fate of Rajnath Sharma and the 256 persons who had escaped from the police station including those 38 persons who were either arrested or who surrendered, 28 who were re-arrested and the 2 persons who were killed in encounter with UP. Police? The current status of fellow citizens who have disappeared/escaped from all the police stations of all 44  police districts is not known.

Also read: Fate of a Habeas Corpus petition, after disposal of the case by High Court, CBI finds Rajnath Sharma, the "absconding person" was killed, burnt in police custody