In Harsh Narayan Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 2-page long order dated October 1, 2026, wherein, it refused to interfere with the impugned orders passed by Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court and the dismissed the Special Leave Petition with the observation "However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the application being Criminal Miscellaneous No.19997/2026."
In Harsh Narayan Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court passed a 4-page long order dated May 8, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the specific allegation of committing assault resulting in death is primarily attributed against co-accused Sonu Jha. It further appears that while passing order in Cr. Misc. No. 2918 of 2025, this Court had taken into consideration the period of custody of Opposite Party No. 2, as well as, the nature of allegations while enlarging him on bail. However, serious allegations have now been raised regarding suppression of criminal antecedents and threat perception to the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased. In such circumstances, this Court deems it proper to direct the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani to furnish a detailed report, as to whether, after release on bail, Opposite Party No. 2 has committed any other offence and also to provide details of all criminal cases in which Opposite Party No. 2 has been made accused along with the final outcome/status of such cases. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani shall also verify the allegation made on behalf of the petitioner regarding threat perception and, if found true, shall ensure adequate protection to the petitioner and his family members. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani is directed to file an affidavit/report before the learned District Court in respect of the aforesaid information. The learned District Court shall also submit a report explaining as to why the trial is still at a very initial stage. 6. Re-notify on 19.06.2026 among the top ten cases."The Opposite Party No. 2 is Mohd. Javed @ Barababoo.
The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the application was filed under section 483(3) of the BNSS for cancellation of bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to the brutal murder of the petitioner’s son, namely Munna Jha. He submitted that the petitioner’s son was taken away by the accused persons and thereafter brutally assaulted and murdered in furtherance of their common intention, thereafter his body was thrown beneath the Bachhraha river bridge with an intention to conceal the offence. It was submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 is specifically named in the F.I.R. with attributed overt acts and the postmortem report corroborates the prosecution case by disclosing multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt substance resulting in haemorrhage and shock. He also submitted that while granting bail, the Sessions Judge erroneously recorded that Opposite Party No. 2 was not named in the F.I.R., though a bare perusal thereof would demonstrate otherwise, and such factual misstatement materially affected the exercise of judicial discretion while granting bail. The counsel further submitted that despite the specific direction issued by the High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2918 of 2025 for verification of criminal antecedents, the trial court failed to properly consider the antecedents of Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 is a habitual offender having involvement in several serious criminal cases including robbery, illegal possession of arms and excise offences, and at least four criminal cases pending against him were deliberately concealed while seeking bail. On these grounds, counsel submitted that the impugned order granting bail is fit to be set aside and the bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 be cancelled.
On June 19, 2026, Justice Singh passed a 2-page long order, wherein, he directed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit within a period of two weeks, annexing all relevant materials and documents evidencing the steps taken by the informant (petitioner) in support of his prayer for cancellation of bail granted to Mohd. Javed @ Barababoo, the Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner was also directed to submit a fresh representation before the Superintendent of Police and the concerned SHO, with a copy duly forwarded to the Director General of Police, Bihar, so that appropriate action may be taken after verification of the allegations made in such representation. The order was passed upon hearing the informant/petitioner's counsel informed the High Court that the petitioner was being subjected to threats and that such conduct constitutes sufficient ground for seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Opposite Party No. 2. It was also submitted that immediately after receiving such threats, the petitioner had informed the Superintendent of Police, as well as, the concerned SHO that, after being enlarged on bail by the High Court, the miscreants are bent upon to kill the petitioner.
Justice Singh's 1-page long order dated July 31, 2026 recorded that the petitioner's counsel informed the High Court that a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) has been filed before the Supreme Court and it was registered under Diary No. 42030 of 2026 dated July 16, 2026 and it was expected that the same will be notified soon. The order reads:"2. Considering the aforesaid information brought on record on behalf of the petitioner, let this matter be listed after final adjudication of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court."
No comments:
Post a Comment