Justice Arun Kumar Jha sets aside order by Special Judge (SC/ST), Aurangabad, grants anticipatory bail in a SC/SCT case

In Saroja Devi @ Saroj Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 4-page long judgement dated July 17, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"07. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the case and counter version and also considering the background of land dispute and further considering the possibility of false implication, let the appellant above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (SC/ST) -cum- 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, Bihar in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 312 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) BNSS and other following conditions: (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the appellant. (ii) The appellant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court. 08. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed."

The judgement records that "Despite valid service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent no. 2" who is Anita Devi.  

The judgement was delivered upon hearing  appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated September 23, 2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST)-cum-1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, Bihar in A.B.P. No. 2009 of 2024. The case arose out of Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 312 of 2024, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 3(5), 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2) BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.  

The prosecution case is that the appellant and other co-accused persons entered into the house of the informant and assaulted her. The counsel for the appellant submitted  that the appellant was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case. No occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. The case was the result of land dispute between the parties and there was a counter case instituted by co-accused Ramkrit Yadav being Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 311 of 2024 and the genesis of the occurrence is that the co-accused was fencing his land and the informant and her family members assaulted him causing injury to him. The counsel submitted that there was no intention to humiliate the informant side by taking their caste name rather it appears to be a case of scuffle and free fight between two groups over some land dispute and this fact depicts from the counter case and the present case has been lodged by the informant only with a view to save their skin from the counter case. The counsel also submitted that the appellant was a lady and there is no specific allegation against her that she insulted the informant by taking her caste name in a public place. No independent witness has supported the version of the informant and it appears that the informant has instituted the case in order to create defence. The appellant was having antecedent of one case which was instituted under different provisions of the IPC and sections 3(1)(r),3(2)(1), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act in which she is on bail. The Special PP submitted that the appellant and other co-accused persons took
caste name of the informant and also assaulted her.

Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma because of committing "an egregious error" in exercising his discretion in favour of murder accused persons by granting anticipatory bail

In Ramakant Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan passed an order dated February 11,  2026, wherein, it set aside the impugned order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court. The accused persons i.e. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, Omprakash Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Singh @Aman Kumar @Aman Singh respectively were ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of one week from February 11, 2026.

Supreme Court' s Division Bench observed: "17. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court committed an egregious error exercising its discretion in favour of the accused persons by granting them anticipatory bail. 18. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. 19. The impugned Order passed by the High Court is set aside....21. Once they surrender before the Trial Court, they shall be remanded to judicial custody. It will be open for both the accused persons to thereafter pray for regular bail. 22. We are informed that the investigation is over and charge- sheet has been filed. 23. The regular bail application that may be filed by the accused persons shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law, having regard to the materials in the charge-sheet. 24. It is needless to clarify that the regular bail application shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observation made by us in the present order. We have said in so many words that the principles governing grant of anticipatory bail differ to a considerable extent from the principles governing grant of regular bail. This shall be kept in mind by the concerned Court while considering the regular bail application of the accused persons."

This appeal arose  from the order passed by the High Court dated July 30, 2025 in the anticipatory bail application. It was preferred by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection with Bishanpur Police Station Case No.14 of 2025 registered on 27-1-2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita respectively. Later, in point of time as the injured succumbed to the injuries, Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added.

The appellant before the Supreme Court was the son of the deceased. He also happened to be the original informant. The First Information Report lodged by the appellant with the Police Station in Darbhanga on January 27, 2025. 

In all six persons were named as accused in the FIR inclusive of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively before us. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 apprehending arrest prayed for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court declined to grant them anticipatory bail.

In such circumstances, they went before the High Court. The High Court accepted their plea and granted them anticipatory bail. The High Court while granting anticipatory bail had observed in para 6 as under:-

“6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no specific allegation of assault against these petitioners and specific allegation of assault is against co-accused person, namely, Ratneshwar Singh and there is case and counter case between the parties and there is also land dispute between the parties for which one Title Suit is pending between the parties, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-

i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.”

The appellant, being the son of the deceased, was before the Supreme Court with the appeal being aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail to the two accused persons i.e. the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively before us. 

Supreme Court's Division Between underlined that "11. The High Court should have been mindful of the fact that the accused persons are alleged to have been involved in a serious crime like murder. We do not say for a moment that in connection with an offence of murder, Court should not grant anticipatory bail”. But, it observed: "....the principles governing grant of anticipatory bail are quite different compared to the principles governing grant of regular bail. 13. Anticipatory bail may be granted by the Court even in a case of murder provided the Court is convinced that the accused persons praying for anticipatory bail have been falsely implicated due to some personal vendetta, political rivalry etc. The accused praying for anticipatory bail has to make out more than a prima facie case of false implication. 14. Grant of anticipatory bail is not a matter of course. Here is a case where the accused persons have been named in the FIR. The first informant is none other but an eye-witness to the incident. He may be the son of the deceased but that by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve what he has alleged in the FIR more particularly when the investigation is going on. We also take into consideration the fact that the deceased died of multiple head injuries. Postmortem Report reveals there were multiple fractures. Prima facie, the ocular version as narrated is in tune with the medical evidence on record. 15. Just because a title suit is pending between the parties by itself could not have been a ground to believe that the accused persons have been falsely implicated."

Supreme Court noted that from the submissions made by the Additional Public Prosecutor before the High Court it is apparent that the Respondent No.2 has five criminal antecedents and the Respondent No.3 had also few criminal antecedents.

Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra quashes cognizance order by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai

Patna High Court delivered three judgements on January 19, 2026 in Manju Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Arun Kumar Choudhary @ Arun Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar and Ravi Singh vs. The State of Bihar. 

In Manju Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra delivered a 10-page long judgement, wherein, he concluded:"21. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed at the threshold in a routine manner. However, where the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence, the prosecution is founded on legally untenable grounds, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, interference by this Court becomes not only permissible but imperative. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of cognizance suffers from non-application of mind and that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would result in grave miscarriage of justice. 23. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. "

The application was filed for quashing the order dated January 3, 2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai in a Complaint Case of 2024 whereby and whereunder th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai took cognizance and issued process for facing trial against the petitioners and others for the offences under sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case was that the complainant solemnized marriage with the co-accused, Sumit Kumar, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at the Kali Temple, Begusarai. It was alleged that despite being fully aware that the complainant was a divorced woman belonging to a different caste and having a minor son from her previous marriage, the co-accused Sumit Kumar voluntarily entered into the matrimonial alliance. After the marriage, the complainant was kept in a rented accommodation. Subsequently, it was alleged that the co-accused Sumit Kumar, along with the other accused persons, subjected the complainant to cruelty, including caste-based abuse and physical assault. It was also alleged that Shivam Kumar, the petitioner no. 2 made an attempt to press the complainant’s neck with an intention to cause her harm.

The  counsel for the petitioners submitted that the criminal proceeding was a gross abuse of the process of law and were liable to be quashed at the threshold because the complaint was founded on vague, omnibus and generalized allegations without attributing any specific overt act of cruelty to the petitioners. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported at (2010 7 SCC 667, wherein the Court had cautioned against the tendency to implicate all family members of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of sweeping and exaggerated allegations.

The counsel for the petitioners also relief upon decision in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr.,reported at (2025) 3 SCC, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes cannot be sustained in the absence of specific allegations and material particulars showing active involvement of the accused persons. It was held that continuation of such proceedings amounts to misuse of criminal law.

The counsel for the petitioners relied upon Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , reported at (2018) 10 SCC 472, wherein the  Supreme Court recognized the rampant misuse of Section 498A IPC and emphasized the need for judicial scrutiny before subjecting the relatives of the husband to criminal prosecution, particularly when allegations were bald and unsubstantiated.

The counsel also submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution was unsustainable, as the complainant was already married to another person and no decree of divorce was placed on record. Consequently, the alleged marriage with co-accused Sumit Kumar was void-ab initio. 

The counsel relied upon Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal, reported at (2025) 2 SCC 587, wherein, the Supreme Court laid down the essential ingredients of a valid marriage and held that in the absence of a legally valid subsisting marriage, prosecution for matrimonial offences is not maintainable.

Therefore, it was submitted that in the absence of a valid marriage, specific allegations of cruelty, or any material indicating harassment by the petitioners, the essential ingredients of Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were not made out. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would therefore result in grave miscarriage of justice and deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

The counsel for the state supported the impugned order taking cognizance that the Court below after considering all the materials against the petitioners took cognizance. 

The High Court noted that the "jurisdiction invoked under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is undoubtedly extraordinary in nature; however, it is equally well settled that such jurisdiction must be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. On a plain reading of the complaint and the statements recorded during enquiry, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioners, who are relatives of the husband, are largely vague, omnibus, and generalized in nature. Except for a broad narrative alleging harassment, the complaint does not attribute any specific role, overt act, or distinct instance of cruelty to any of the petitioners. The absence of material particulars assumes significance, particularly in matrimonial disputes where the tendency to implicate the entire family has been judicially noticed and deprecated."

In Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar fact situation, expressed serious concern over the growing misuse of matrimonial provisions by roping in distant and uninvolved relatives on the basis of exaggerated and sweeping allegations.

The Court held that criminal law should not be permitted to be used as a weapon of harassment and that courts must be cautious and circumspect while dealing with such complaints.

Applying the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment, the High Court found that "the allegations in the present case lack the requisite specificity to justify continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners."

Justice Mishra observed:"A further crucial and undisputed aspect of the case is the categorical admission of the complainant that she had been residing separately from the petitioners for nearly three years and had never shared a household with them. This admission strikes at the very root of the allegation of cruelty. Cruelty, in the context of matrimonial offences, presupposes a degree of proximity, interaction, or cohabitation that enables harassment or ill-treatment. In the absence of any shared residence or meaningful interaction, the allegation of cruelty by the in-laws becomes inherently improbable. The admitted factual position, therefore, does not disclose any circumstance giving rise to cruelty attributable to the petitioners."

The only allegation with some degree of specificity was against petitioner no. 2, namely, Shivam Kumar, alleging an attempt to press the neck of the complainant. However, this allegation was conspicuously unsupported by any medical evidence or contemporaneous record. No injury report, hospital document, or independent corroboration was produced. More importantly, this allegation did not find mention in the initial complaint and surfaced for the first time during the enquiry through a witness statement. Such an improvement, in the absence of supporting material, renders the allegation doubtful and insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution.

Justice Mishra observed:"15. This Court also finds substantial merit in the submission that the very foundation of the prosecution is legally unsustainable. It is an admitted position that the complainant was previously married and has a minor child from the said marriage. No decree of divorce dissolving the earlier marriage has been placed on record. In the absence of dissolution of the subsisting marriage, the alleged subsequent marriage with accused Sumit Kumar is void-ab-initio in the eyes of law." He referred to Supreme Court's decision in Dolly Rani vs.Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2025) 2 SCC 587, had categorically held that the existence of a legally valid and subsisting marriage was a sine qua non for invoking matrimonial offences. The Court clarified that where the marriage itself is void or legally nonexistent, the very basis for prosecution under matrimonial provisions collapses. 

In this case, the absence of a valid marriage strikes at the root of the prosecution.

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 requires the coexistence of two essential ingredients: first, a legally valid marital relationship; and second, cruelty arising out of such relationship. 

Justice Mishra wrote:"This Court finds that neither of these ingredients is satisfied in the present case."

In Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2025) 3 SCC, the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes cannot be permitted to continue where allegations are general, unsupported by material evidence, and disclose no active involvement of the accused. The Court emphasized that criminal law should not be used as a tool of pressure or harassment.

Justice Mishra recollected that in Rajesh Sharma & Ors vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, the Supreme Court acknowledged the rampant misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and underscored the duty of courts to prevent unnecessary prosecution of relatives of the husband, particularly when allegations are bald and unsubstantiated.

He noted that the case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1)SCC 335. The matter clearly attracts the illustrative categories carved out therein, particularly where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and are manifestly attended with mala fide and abuse of the process of law. Continuation of the prosecution, in such circumstances, would serve no legitimate purpose.

Supreme Court seeks medico-legal reports in an attempt to murder case from Muzaffarpur

In Rahul Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justuces Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan heard a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) arising out of 3-page long order dated January 8, 2025 passed by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of Patna High Court on April 30, 2025. The 2-page long order of the Supreme Court's Division bench reads: "The counter affidavit filed by the State duly sworn by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Muzaffarpur (Bihar) does not enclose the injury report or the medico-legal report of the Community Health Centre, where the injured was first examined and thereafter referred to Prashant Hospital, which is a private set-up." The counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar, produced a photocopy of the examination report of the injured by the Prashant Hospital. It observed:"The Trial Court order rejecting the bail clearly records that the injury report was not placed on record. Let the Senior Superintendent of Police file further affidavit placing on record the medico-legal reports of the Community Health Centre, where the injured was first examined and also the relevant medical report from the Prashant Hospital within two weeks. List the matter again on 15th May, 2025. In the meantime, petitioner may also file rejoinder affidavit."

In this case of attempt to murder from Mansurpur, Chamarua, Karja, Muzaffarpur, Justice Verma had concluded: "There is direct and specific allegation of assault against the petitioner and it appears from the impugned order itself that the learned court below itself perused the spot injury on the person of the husband of the informant when he has appeared before the learned court below, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner...." The petitioner had approached the High apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR dated August 7, 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),115(2),118(1), 109, 352, 351(3) and   3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Section 126 of the BNS deals with "Wrongful Restraint". Section 115 deals with "voluntarily causing hurt." Section 118 of the BNS deals with the offense of "voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means". Section 109 of the BNS deals with the crime of "attempt to murder". Section 352 of the BNS penalizes intentional insults intended to provoke a breach of peace. Section 351 of the BNS deals with criminal intimidation, which is the act of threatening another person with harm to their body, reputation, property, or someone they care about, with the intent to cause fear or compel them to act against their will. Section 3(5) of the BNS outlines a principle of joint criminal liability.

The FIR was registered on the basis of the written report of the informant Babita Devi alleging that on August 6, 2024 Rahul Kumar, his wife Chandani Kumari and Mina Kumari came to her door and started hurling abused on which when her husband Ravindra Paswan objected, Chandani Kumari and Mina Devi give instigation to kin on which Rahul Kumar assaulted the husband of the informant by a knife in his ribs due to which he fell down and became unconscious. On alarm raised by her the villagers came and took her husband to SKMCH, for treatment but later on he was taken to Prashant Hospital at Juran Chhapra, Muzaffarpur where his treatment was going on so there was delay in filing of FIR.