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 finds second anticipatory bail petition maintainable, reverses order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh

 

In Digvijay Narayan vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 4-page long order dated May 4, 2025, wherein, it reversed the order dated February 9, 2026 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. While issuing notice on April 7, 2026, by way of interim relief, the Supreme Court had issued direction for not taking coercive steps subject to cooperation in the investigation. 

The Court's order reads:"....we deem it appropriate to confirm the order of interim protection and deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail....we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by the Station House Officer of the concerned police station." 

Justice Singh's order had dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition as not maintainable, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in of G.R. Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 176.  The petitioner had approached the Court apprehending his arrest in connection with a FIR dated November 29, 2024 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, District Vaishali, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  

Justice Singh's order dated August 27, 2025 with respect to the first anticipatory bail application had rejected it. It recorded the prosecution case, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, had fraudulently mutated the land of informant in the name of others on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The counsel of petitioner had submitted that petitioner was quite innocent and had committed no offence. the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case merely because at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Revenue Clerk. The order had noted that the petitioner had two criminal antecedents. The order reads: "6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected."

Supreme Court's order has directed the petitioner to join the investigation as and when required and co-operate in the same abiding all the conditions as specified under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./Section 482 of BNSS.

Supreme Court sets aside Justice Purnendu Singh's indefensible order ridden with glaring infirmities, requests High Court's roster bench to decide the case afresh, within 1 month

In Anjani Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 3-page long order dated April 202, 026, wherein, it condoned the delay, granted leave and allowed the appeal after taking note of the order dated October 9, 2025 passed by Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court. It concluded: "4. The impugned order speaks for itself. The infirmities are so obvious and glaring that the same neither warrants detailed exposition nor is there any necessity to issue notice to the respondents. 5. The impugned order being indefensible, is set aside. We request the roster Bench of the High Court to decide Criminal Miscellaneous No.60503 of 2024 afresh upon granting due opportunity of hearing to the parties and in accordance with law, as early as possible and, subject to its convenience, within a month from date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. We keep all contentions on merits open for being urged by the parties before the roster Bench."

In the impugned 2-page long order dated October 10, 2025 in Anjani Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Singh had observed:"2. The present quashing application has been notified on “Urgent Mentioning” made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. In spite of repeated calls, no one has appeared on behalf of the parties. 4. I proceed to pass order on merit on the basis of materials available on the record. 5. The present quashing application has been filed for for following issues:-'For setting aside/quashing of cognizance order dated 18.12.2023 passed in complaint case No. (C)1252/2023 by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate XIII, Saran whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 420/466/471 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code for complaint filed for alleged offence under Section 194, 420, 466, 468, 469, 471, 504 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceeding.' 6.The charge-sheet was submitted on 29.09.2020 and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate XIII, Saran took cognizance under Section 420, 466, 471 and 120B of the IPC having found sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. 7. This Court finds that the instant case is one of the cases in which the parties may exercise to settle their dispute amicably and the learned District Court may also give opportunity to them, so that they can settle their dispute outside the Court. 8. The present quashing application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty."

Supreme Court detected obvious and glaring infirmities in Justice Singh's order and requested the roster bench to hear the case afresh. 

Supreme Court upholds judgement of conviction by Justices Aditya Kumar Trivedi, Samarendra Pratap Singh in a murder case

In Adalat Yadav etc. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K Singh delivered a 18-page long judgement dated April 22, 2026, wherein, it dismissed the appeals. The appellant-convicts before the Court were the father and son, namely Adalat Yadav and Anirudh Yadav. This appeals of 2019 were filed by Adalat Yadav, and Anirudh Yadav. Both challenging the 56-page long common judgment by Justices Aditya Kumar Trivedi and Samarendra Pratap Singh dated February 4, 2017 passed in Girdhari Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2017), whereby the Division Bench had confirmed finding of conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Fast Track Court-IV Begusarai1 in terms of judgment dated November 22, 2011 passed in a Sessions Trial of 2019 sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 149 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also a fine of Rs.10,000/. These convicts were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years under Sections 307, 149 of the I.P.C. read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.5000/. Apart from this, they were also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. The High Court's judgement was authored by Justice Trivedi. 

On December 4, 2008 while Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav (PW-5/complainant) was homebound from the Begusarai Court along with his brother Ram Sharan Yadav (deceased), certain persons including two appellants/convicts surrounded them upon reaching the grocery store run by one Suresh Mahto. A-1 hurled abuses at them and stated that despite repeated directions/clear warnings given to them by Girdhari Yadav (who was also an accused before the High Court), against giving depositions in the murder case on one Mahesh Paswan, the deceased had refused to heed. He then fired his pistol, hitting the deceased on his head, making him fall to his death, instantly. A-2 had fired upon the deceased and, thereafter, other members of the group also opened fired on the complainant as also one Ganesh and Baidyanath Yadav, who were walking alongside the deceased and the complainant. The bullet fired by one Shivji Yadav, hit the complainant on his leg. A written complaint was lodged about the incident on the same day, resulting in registration of FIR Number 222/08 at Police Station Balia. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheets were filed in March 2009. The Trial Court convicted a total of 4 persons including the appellant-convicts while acquitting one Ram Balak Yadav. A perusal of the Trial Court judgment reveals that such a finding was arrived at upon a cumulative assessment of the testimonies of all the witnesses. 

Supreme Court's Division Bench sets aside order by Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Partha Sarthy, gnoring Court's 3-Judge Bench decision in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb?

In Dhan Jee Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and A. Amanullah delivered a 21-page long judgment dated April 10, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"...The impugned order granting suspension of sentence to Respondent No. 2 is set aside. Consequently, the bail bond furnished by Respondent No. 2 stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure his custody in accordance with law....The impugned order granting suspension of sentence to Respondent No. 2 is set aside. Consequently, the bail bond furnished by Respondent No. 2 stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure his custody in accordance with law." The judgement was authored by Justice Mahadevan. The impugned 5-page long order dated order dated November 22, 2024 in Shekhar Pandey @ Shekhar Suman Pandey @ Sintu Pandey @ Situ vs. The State of Bihar (2024) was authored by High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Partha Sarthy. The case had arisen out of PS. Case No.-4/2016.  

Justice Prasad had authored the High Court's order. His reasoning appears defensible in the light of the decision in Union of India v. KA Najeeb AIR 2021 SC 712, 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on February 1, 2021. The relevant part of para 18 of the judgement reads:

“... at the commencement of proceedings, courts are expected to appreciate the legislative position against grant of bail but the rigours of such provision melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence…”

The decision in Najeeb's case “lays down the constitutional approach arising from Article 21, whereas Watali (supra) explains the statutory approach arising out of Section 4-3(D)(5) of UAPA” (para 21 of Mohamad Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2021 SCC Online Del 4623. In its decision in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, delivered by the Supreme Court on April 2, 2019.

  

The judgement by Justice Mahadevan reads: "A perusal of the record indicates that the prosecution case is founded on ocular evidence, which has been duly appreciated and accepted by the trial Court. Without considering the same in a proper perspective, the High Court erred in granting suspension of sentence to Respondent No. 2 and released him on bail. 19. The reliance placed by the High Court on the circumstance that the fatal shot was attributed to a co-accused, while Respondent No. 2 has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC, is wholly misconceived. The doctrine of constructive liability under Section 34 IPC is well settled; where an offence is committed in furtherance of a common intention, each participant is equally liable for the act done in execution thereof. The absence of a specific overt act cannot, at this stage, dilute the culpability of the convict, particularly in the face of a finding of common intention. 20. It is further evident that the High Court has embarked upon a selective consideration of certain aspects of the prosecution case, which in substance amounts to a premature reappreciation of evidence. Such an approach is directly contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Om Prakash Sahni (supra). 21. As held in State of Haryana v. Hasmat (supra), undue weight cannot be accorded to the period of incarceration or the pendency of the appeal in isolation, particularly where the conviction is founded on credible evidence. 22. The criminal antecedents of Respondent No. 2 also assume significance. The prosecution has brought on record multiple prior cases registered against him, including offences involving violence and use of arms. Though it has been contended that such cases arose out of political rivalry and have culminated in acquittal, such a contention cannot, at this stage, efface the relevance of antecedents as a factor in assessing the propriety of granting suspension of sentence. 23. Additionally, material has been placed to indicate that Respondent No. 2 has allegedly attempted to intimidate the appellant by issuing threats and initiating false cases. The explanation offered on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that such allegations are motivated, does not inspire confidence of this Court, particularly at this interlocutory stage. 24. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the evidence as accepted by the trial Court, the absence of any apparent infirmity in the judgment of conviction, and the settled legal position governing suspension of sentence, this Court is of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in granting suspension of sentence to Respondent No. 2. The impugned order, therefore, warrants interference by this Court." 

 

Notably, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices V.R. Krishnaiyer and N.L. Untwalia in State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308 held:"The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court." Justice Mahadevan's judgement has taken note of  

Justice Mahadevan relied on Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana vs. Hasmat (2004) 6 SCC 175, wherein, the Court held that suspension of sentence in serious offences must not be granted as a matter of routine, and that the appellate court must apply its mind to the nature of the offence, the manner of its commission, and the gravity of the findings recorded by the trial Court. The relevant paragraphs are: “6. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed. If he is in confinement, the said Court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.….9. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [(2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [(2002) 9 SCC 366 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1197] it was held by this Court that in cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. The impugned order of the High Court does not meet the requirement. In Vijay Kumar case [(2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. These aspects have not been considered by the High Court while passing the impugned order." Notably, Justice Mahadevan's judgement does not refer to the subsequent decision of 2021 in Najeeb's case.  

It is crystal clear from the decision in Najeeb's case that the settled position of law is that the restriction on grant of bail will hold at the initial stages, but as time progresses the statutory restrictions, which “draw this justification on the premise that trial in such cases would be concluded expeditiously” gets diluted. It has been underlined by the Bombay High Court in Vinay Vivek Aranha vs. Union of India and another, (BA 2641/2021).

Significantly, a judgement delivered in ignorance of a relevant statutory position is deemed to be per incuriam. In para 183 of the Supreme Court's decision in AR Antulay v. RS Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602) held that a decision set aside would “demand the decision of its precedent value”. In para 41 of its decision in State of UP and Anr. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. (1991 4 SCC 139) cited from page no. 153 of Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Ed. that a “decision passes sub-silentio when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present in its mind”. In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Labour Court (1980) 3 SCC 682), it held that the “Supreme Court may not be said to declare the law on these subjects if the relevant provisions were not really present to its mind”.

The criminal appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by the appellant/informant challenging the judgment and order dated November 22, 2024 passed by Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1180 of 2018, whereby, the High Court, during the pendency of the appeal, had suspended the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Respondent No. 2, Shekhar Pandey @ Shekhar Suman Pandey @ Sintu Pandey @ Situ and released him on bail. The prosecution case was that on the basis of the written information (fardbayan) of the appellant /informant, namely Dhan Jee Pandey, Buxar P. S. case dated January 4, 2016 was registered under Sections 302, 307, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against Respondent No. 2 and other accused persons. It was alleged that on January 4, 2016 at about 04.15 p.m., the appellant, along with his elder brother (deceased), Ramashankar Pandey @ Jhamman Pandey, was proceeding towards his village on a motorcycle. On the way, they stopped at a betel shop located at the village chatti. At that time, the appellant’s father-in-law, Mukteshwar Mishra, also arrived and engaged in conversation with the appellant at a short distance from the shop. In the meantime, Respondent No. 2 along with other accused persons reached the spot and began abusing the deceased. Immediately thereafter, two accused persons, namely Shiv Jee Pandey and Ghanshyam Pandey, caught hold of the deceased, while the others took out firearms. Shiv Jee Pandey then fired a gunshot at the head of the deceased, causing fatal injuries. The other accused persons also fired at the appellant, who narrowly escaped. Thereafter, all the accused fled the scene on motorcycles. The deceased succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot.

Upon hearing the interlocutory application, the appellant Shekhar Pandey @ Shekhar Suman Pandey @ Sintu Pandey @ Situ wherein he had renewed his prayer for suspension of sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal, in his order, Justice Prasad had concluded: "....we are of the opinion that in the kind of the allegations against the appellant and the materials in which he has been convicted showing that he along with other had caught hold of the deceased, the allegation being general in nature and he has already spent six years seven months in incarceration but the appeal has not been listed for hearing, we direct suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-II-cum-Special Judge, Excise Court, Buxar in connection with Sessions Trial No.265 of 2016 arising out of Buxar (I) P.S. Case No.4 of 2016. 10. The fine, if any, imposed as a part of sentence shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal. 11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only prima- facie and tentative for the purpose of suspension of sentence and bail only which would not cause prejudice to the either parties."

 

While rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant on earlier occasion, the Justice Prasad of High Court in his order dated January 21, 2020 had observed that the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at this stage. But at the subsequent stage, the the Couryt became inclined because the appellant had already remained in incarceration for over six years seven months and since the rejection of his prayer for bail more than 4½ years had gone past but the appeal had not yet been listed for hearing. 

 

The Supreme Court's Justice Mahadevan "emphasised that reasons must be recorded in writing, reflecting due consideration of relevant factors, and that orders granting suspension of sentence should not be passed mechanically." 

 

In Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement (2024) SLP (Crl.) 5416/2024, Supreme Court in its decision dated August 28, 2024 upheld the principle laid down in Balchand of bail being the rule and jail being the exception--- through which it can be deduced that in cases of arrest by ED as well, the natural bail principle is to follow. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in a PMLA matter in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022). Notably, the decision in the case of Prem Prakash relied upon a decision by three justices in Raja Ram Jaiswal AIR 1964 SC 828 but failed to mention that after the decision in the case of Raja Ram Jaiswal came the Constitution Bench's decision in Badku Joti Savant AIR 1966 SC 1746.

 

 

Prashant Jain's writ petition in Shilpi Jain-Gautam Singh kidnapping-rape-murder case pending in Patna High Court?

Can High Court find out culprits of Shilpi Jain-Gautam Singh case?

On August 5, 1997, during the hearing of a petition, the Patna High Court had called Bihar a ''jungle raj'' for the first time. Although it was not mentioned in the order, it was widely reported in the newspapers.  The kidnapping-rape-murder of Shilpi Jain-Gautam Singh in January 1999 demonstrated it. But what happend in January 2006 and in subsequent years during November, 2005–October 2025 is illustrative how more the things seem to change, the more it remains almost the same in Bihar.   

Prashant Jain, the brother of Shilpi Jain (23), who was kidnapped and killed along with her friend Gautam Singh (27) in July 1999 too was kidnapped by unidentified criminals from near the White House, located on the Buddha Marg, Patna on January 5, 2006 at 10 PM. Prashant Jain who had tried to have the case of kidnapping and murder of Shilpi Jain-Gautam Singh reopened in 2006. It never came to light as to who had hired the kidnappers for the kidnapping of Prashant Jain and whether they were also involved in the kidnapping of Shilpi Jain and Gautam Singh. Prashant Jain was released near Hajipur by the kidnappers. 

On July 3, 1999, Gandhi Maidan Police, Patna had found the naked bodies of Shilpi Jain (22), the graduate from Patna Women's College Gautam Singh, a leader of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in the garage of MLA Quarter No. 12, inside a White Maruti Zen (BR-1J-5001) based on the telephonic call from an unidentified person. The garage was locked  from inside. Shilpi Jain was the daughter of Ujjwal Kumar Jain, a readymade garments businessman in Patna who owned owner Kamla Stores. Gautam Singh was a son of Dr. B.N. Singh, a London-based doctor. Manvinder Singh Bhatia, a IPS officer of the 1993 batch was the Superintendent of Police, Patna City at the time of their kidnapping and murder.

On July 2, 1999, around 2 P.M. Shilpi Jain was going to the institute for computer coaching by rickshaw. On the way, she met an identified friend of Gautam Singh who was in a car who offered to drop her off. But Gautam Singh's friend turned the car in a different direction, not towards her computer institute. He told her he was going to meet Gautam Singh in Valmi Guest House in Phulwari Sharif. Upon receiving news that Shilpi Jain was taken to Valmi, Gautam Singh reached  Valmi Guest House. It has been reported that Gautam Singh was beaten up and Shilpi Jain was raped in the guest house. When Shilpi Jain did not return home long after her tuition time, her family became began to search for her. They went to the police station at 7 p.m. and filed a missing person report. The police got an anonymous call around 9:30 p.m. informing the Gandhi Maidan police station that two people were lying dead in a closed garage. Shilpi Jain was wearing only the T-shirt of Gautam Singh. Gautam Singh's body had only pants.

The garage in the quarter where Gautam and Shilpi's dead bodies were found belonged to Sadhu Yadav. Sadhu Yadav arrived with his supporters about half an hour later. The police had not informed anyone about the incident. To this day, it remains unclear as to who informed the police about the bodies and who informed Sadhu Yadav. The police at Gandhi Maidan police station removed both bodies from the car and sent them for post-mortem examination. A constable drove the car in which the bodies were found to the police station. Consequently, all the fingerprints on the vehicle were altered. The post-mortems was  hurriedly conducted, and their bodies were cremated. Gautam Singh's father was not even informed. By the time he arrived from London to Patna, his son's funeral had already taken place. The police at Gandhi Maidan police station declared the incident a suicide even before the post-mortem report was available. The then-City Superintendent of Police, Manvinder Singh Bhatia had claimed that both of the died from carbon monoxide poisoning, meaning suffocation. 

The post-mortem was conducted at Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH). It stated that there was no carbon monoxide poisoning. The viscera report came in on July 28, 1999, 25 days after the incident. It found traces of aluminum phosphide (sulfas) tablets in their bodies. Sulfas is highly toxic and is used as a preservative to preserve grains. After few days, samples were sent to the Centre of DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnosis (CDFD), Hyderabad for forensic testing which revealed that Shilpi Jain's underwear contained seminal strains from more than one person. The then Chief Minister and Sadhu Yadav's sister, Rabri Devi, transferred the case to the CBI in September 1999.

The CBI's investigation began collecting blood samples from Gautam Singh's friends to match the semen found on his underwear. The blood samples from five of Gautam Singh's friends- Manish, Rakesh, Pankaj, S.P. Singh, and Ashok Yadav, were sent to the CDFD, but none of them produced a DNA match. Shilpi Singh's uncle, Sajal Kumar Jain, also underwent a DNA test, but the sample did not match. The CBI could not get the blood sample from Sadhu Yadav. The CBI did not approach to get any court court to get his blood sample. 

The CBI investigated the case during September 1999-2004. In late 2004, the CBI submitted a closure report in the case. The closure report stated, ''The unidentified man's seminal stains were found in the deceased Shilpi Jain's underwear, but not on her body, indicating that the semen stains were from a previous time. There are no signs of a struggle. Scientific evidence and the chronology of events clearly indicate that this is a case of suicide. Both deaths were caused by aluminum phosphide poisoning. This final report is being filed before this Honorable Court under Section 173 of Cr.PC. It is requested that this report be taken on record and the case be closed.''

When Shilpi's brother tried to open a case, he was kidnapped, who got him kidnapped?

Who will belive that Prashant Jain's kidnapping was only for ransom? 

Wasn't he kidnapped immediately after he filed a writ in the High Court with regard to Shilpi Jain-Gautam Singh rape-murder case?

In Randhir Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2015), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Samarendra Pratap Singh and Kishore Kumar Mandal delivered a 19-page long judgement dated March 24, 2015, wherein, it heard the criminal appeal along with three other related criminal appeals filed against common judgment dated April 28, 2007, passed in Sessions Trial No. 471 of 2006, arising out of Kotwali Police station Case No. 10 of 2006, whereby Additional Sessions Judge, FTC XI, Patna had convicted all the four appellants under sections 364A and 120B of the Indian penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. They have also been directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the four appeals were heard analogous and were disposed of by this common judgment. The Division Bench's judgement was authored by Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh.Notably, Mr Neeraj kumar @ Sanidh was appointed Amicus Curiae in all the four appeals.

The prosecution case was disclosed in the written report of one Ujwal Kumar Jain (PW 11), who is father of victim Prashant Kumar Jain (PW 11) to PW 9 (officer- in-charge of Kotwali police station, Patna), on 5.1.2006 at about 10 PM at his residence in the White House Apartment, Buddha Marg, Patna, is as follows:-
a) Informant’s son Prashant Kumar Jain and his (informant) younger brother Ranjan Jain at about 10 PM on 5.2.2006 after closing the shop, namely, Kamla Stores located in New Market in the township of Patna started for their respective residence in separate scooters.
b) Ranjan Jain proceeded towards his Boring road residence, whereas Prashant Kumar Jain took turn for his White House apartment which was situated on Budha Marg near Land Development bank. As soon as Prashant Kumar Jain reached near his Apartment, 4 to 5 persons, who were in look out for him, pushed his Scooter and dragged him into the white coloured Maruti Esteem car bearing No. DL 2C 5659 and fled with a view to kidnap him.
c) The matter was reported to the informant by the night guard of the Apartment namely Mani Kant Mishra (PW 8), who had witnessed the occurrence.
d) Police station was forthwith informed on telephone.

On the basis of the written report of the informant, Kotwali Police station Case No. 10 of 2006 dated January 5, 2006 was instituted at 11.30 PM under section 364A and 120B of the IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 364A and 120B of the IPC against the appellants and some other accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 364A/120B of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them PW 7 is uncle of the informant who was a hearsay witness. PW 2 (Neera Jain) is mother of the victim Prashant Kumar Jain (PW 11) and a hearsay witness. PW 3 Amit Kesari was another resident of White house apartment and had claimed to have seen unknown persons in front of the apartment when he was returning in the night to his flat around 10 to 15 minutes before the occurrence. PW 4 Basawan Ram is the Officer-in-charge of Bakhtiarpur police station, who registered Bakhtiarpur Police station Case No. 9 of 2006, consequent to recovery of Maruti Esteem car used in the crime. PW 5 Rajesh Kumar was a friend of accused Santosh and Abhishek Kumar and was a hearsay witness.

PW 6 Aniket Kumar was another friend of accused Abhishek Kumar and Vikki who had traveled in the white Esteem car from Fatuha to Bakhtiarpur. On the fateful night. PW 7 Alok Ranjan @ Appu was a friend of accused persons and is a hearsay witness. PW 8 Manikant Mishra was the night guard of the apartment who saw the white Maruti Esteem car parked outside the apartment in suspicious circumstances. After sometime, he found the scooter of victim Prasant Kumar Jain lying on the street near the apartment. PW 9 Ujwal Kumar Jain is the informant of this case and father of victim Prasant Kumar Jain (PW 11). He was however not an eye witness to the occurrence. PW 10 Ravindra kumar Mishra is the ex-owner of the white Maruti Esteem car who was said to have sold the same to Pankaj Kumar Das, brother of Santosh Kumar Das, since deceased. 

PW 11 (Prashant Jain) is the victim and son of PWs. 2 and 9, and nephew of PW 1. PW 12 Ram Krishna Sinha @ Pappu was the owner of brick chimni (Kiln) where the Esteem car was found abandoned. PW 13 Chandrika Prasad was the ASI of Bakhtiarpur police station. He chased the Esteem car and ultimately seized it parked near the brick kiln in village Sabnima. PW 14 Chandrika Prasad was the SI of Kotwali police station. He is the Investigating officer (IO) of the case. 

PW 15 Ajay Kumar Singh was the Officer-in-charge of Kotwali police station and 2nd IO of this case. He arrested the accused persons of the case. 

Besides examining 15 witnesses the prosecution also brought various exhibits on record to support its case. The defence did not choose to examine any witness nor it produced any document. Their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were complete denial of their involvement in the alleged incident. 

The trial court on consideration of materials on record convicted the appellants under sections 364A and 120B of the IPC as already noticed in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment. All the appellants i.e. Randhir Kumar, Sanjay Sao, Ram Kirpal Sahni and Abhishek Mishra preferred separate criminal appeals, namely, Cr.Appeal No. 751, 805, 956 and 1161 of 2007 respectively.

One fact stands admitted is that the victim Prasant Kumar Jain (PW 11) returned to his house on January 17, 2006 all on his own. Manikant Mishra, (PW 8), the night guard of the Apartment claims to have seen the Maruti Esteem car parked in front of the western gate with three to four boys, who on seeing him drove the car in eastern direction only to move again in greater speed in suspicious circumstances and immediately thereafter the scooter of Prashant Kumar Jain was found lying on road near the western gate of the apartment. The victim Prasant Kumar Jain (PW 11) himself is a witness to the occurrence.

In order to substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as noticed in the earlier paragraph as many as 15 witnesses. Out of them, the most important witness is PW 11, Prashant Jain, the victim himself. He is indisputably the eye witness to the occurrence. But before we examine PW 11, it would be advantageous to examine PW 8, the night guard on whose information the written report was lodged by Ujwal Kumar Jain (PW 9), father of the victim. PW 8 in his examination-in-chief stated that he works as a night guard in the Apartment situated in the Buddha Marg, Patna. At about 10 PM on January 5, 2006 he was on his duty at the Apartment. Around 10 PM Amrit Kesari told him that a car was parked outside the gate with 3-4 boys loitering around which seemed abnormal. PW 8 accordingly came outside the gate and saw a white Esteem car parked at the western gate of the Apartment and noted the number of the car. As PW 8 proceeded towards them, the accused started the car and sped towards eastern direction. PW 8 in the meantime was able to memorize the car number as DL 2 CC 5859. After some time, he saw the same car coming back from eastern side in speed. Sensing some foul play, PW 8 stepped outside the gate of the Apartment. He found the scooter of the victim Prashant Kumar Jain lying on road near the western gate. He identified the scooter to be of Prashant Kumar Jain (PW 11), bearing registration number BR 1F/4829. He immediately informed Ujwal Kumar Jain, father of Prashant Kumar Jain (the victim) who owned and resided in Flat no. 701B at the 7th floor of the Apartment. On getting this unfortunate information, Ujwal Kumar Jain, the informant (PW 9) rushed down. Manikant Mishra immediately passed on the number of the car to Ujwal Kumar Jain and the police was accordingly informed. The police arrived at the place of occurrence within 15 to 20 minutes and inquired about the incident whereafter Ujwal Kumar Jain (PW 9) submitted a written report.

PW 9 father of the victim in his deposition supported the prosecution case. He stated that on 5.1.2006 his brother Ranjan Kumar Jain and Prashant Kumar Jain had gone to the shop located in New Market, Patna. This witness on the relevant day had not gone to the shop. At about 9.45 PM on January 5, 2006, the night guard informed him through Intercom that the scooter of his son Prashant Jain was lying on the road in front of the western gate of the Apartment. On receiving the news, he came down and learnt about the incident from PW 8. PW 9 found the scooter of his son lying on the road at the place indicated by the night guard. He at once informed his brother Ranjan Kumar Jain (PW 1) on phone and then the police. Soon PW 1 arrived at his place. The police later arrived and PW 9 submitted the written report. He stated in his evidence that his son/the victim Prashant Jain was carrying a mobile phone and the sale proceeds of the shop to the tune of Rs.25,000/- at the time of his abduction. 

PW 3 Amrit Keshari also supported the incident as spelt out by PW 9. He stated that on 5.1.2006 at about 10 PM he was returning to his flat bearing Flat No 704 of A Block situated in the same Apartment after playing Badminton at his uncle’s place. As soon as he came near the Apartment, he saw ¾ persons standing at the west side gate of the Apartment with a car. The boys initially had advanced towards him, but soon retracted. As the behaviour of the boys were not normal, he informed the PW 8, the night guard to keep watch on them.

From the evidence of PW 8, the night guard, and evidence of PW 3 Amrit Kesari, two circumstances come to the fore front. Firstly that the white Maruti Esteem car was found parked near the western gate (the 2nd gate) in suspicious circumstances and 3 to 4 persons were found standing near it. On seeing the night guard, the occupants of the car hurriedly drove towards western direction. After sometime they again returned from the eastern side and sped speedily towards the west. Secondly, soon the car sped towards west, the scooter of Prashant Jain was found lying abandoned on the road in front of the 1st gate near Land Development Bank which was seen by the witnesses including father of the victim and the guard. The police officials namely PWs 14 and 15 also found the abandoned scooter lying on the road in front of the 1st gate of the Apartment. The fact that the victim was returning by the said scooter has also been confirmed by PW 1 who stated that he and the victim had left the shop at around 9.45 PM on their respective scooters. He (PW 1) proceeded towards Boring road whereas his nephew (the victim) took turn on the Buddha Marg towards his apartment. After sometime, he got the message from his brother Ujwal Kumar Jain that the latter’s son has been abducted from near the Apartment. Thereafter, he immediately rushed to the Apartment.

The High Court's Dividsion Bench examined PW 11 Prashant Kumar Jain who is the most important witness of the case being the victim and eye witness of the occurrence. He deposed that on the night of January 5, 2006 at about 9.30 PM, he along with his uncle Ranjan Kumar Jain after closing the shop proceeded towards their residence. His uncle Ranjan Kumar Jain (PW 1) proceeded for his residence at Boring Road and this witness proceeded for his apartment in White House on Budha Marg. As soon as he reached near the Apartment, he saw a white car parked near the apartment where 4 to 5 persons were standing in suspicious circumstances. They pushed the scooter and made him fall on road and dragged him into car. When he tried to raise alarm, they assaulted him with butt of the revolver on head causing injury. The cap which he was wearing also dropped. PW 11 had suspicion that he has been abducted. He stated that the car had no light and the accused persons covered his (the victim) eyes with Muffler and made to lie on the floor of the car. In the conversation, names of Abhishek, Vikky and Dilip figured. He was having Rs.5000/- and Rs.25,000/- of the sale proceeds, beside a Mobile phone and a gold chain. The accused persons snatched all his belongings and switched off his mobile phone. The car moved for 25 to 30 minutes and then it stopped at a place, where some people were present from before. He was lifted by one of them on his shoulder. He was soon loaded on a boat which sailed for 10 to 15 minutes. Thereafter, they again traveled on foot for sometime. After going some distance, the accused persons finally removed muffler from his eyes. They were three in number and had covered their faces. He was finally taken to a house and confined to a room. He was provided a gunny bag for sleeping. One person provided him Biscuit and water. One person generally guarded his room. On knocking of the door a woman used to open it. He can recognize the woman on seeing her. There was a small hole in the wall to facilitate ventilation. A Pit was provided in the corner of the room for answering call of nature. After 2 to 3 days, the accused persons informed him that he would be released shortly. He was finally released on January 16, 2006. However, his eyes were covered till he reached the bank of a river. As no boat was available, the accused persons waited the whole night along with him on the bank for the boat. In the morning, a boat man came. PW 11 was given Rs.30/- for his traveling and other expenses. He traveled on the boat in which some persons were also sitting from before. The boat dropped him near Bidupur. He informed his brother Nishant Kumar Jain from a telephone booth that he has been released and he would be reaching Hajipur bridge. This witness reached village Jarhua near Hajipur, but no one had arrived by then to meet him. He again made a telephone call and after sometime his family members came and met him near the Hajipur bridge. Some police personnel had also come with his family members. The next day his statement was recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C..

The next important witness in the sequence was PW 4 Basawan Ram, who was posted as Officer-in-charge of Bakhtiyarpur police station. He stated that in the night of January 5, 2006 at about 11.15 PM, he received a wireless message of higher officials that a person was kidnapped and was being carried in the east direction by a Esteem car bearing registration no. DL 2 CC 5859. He was directed to keep a vigil of it. On receiving the informations PW 4 along with police party including PW 13 put a road blockade at New Bye pass More, N.H.Bakhtiarpur. After 20 to 25 minutes, he saw an Esteem car coming from Patna side. He signaled the driver to stop, but the driver after slowing down the car sped fast it. As the car closeted, he was able to identify the registration number which tallied with the number of the vehicle given by the higher police officials. He also identified the driver and the person sitting beside him, in flash of torch light. He identified accused Abhishek Mishra in court as the driver of the Maruti vehicle. PW 4 and his police party chased the vehicle. The  miscreants opened fire in retaliation. The police also opened fire in defence. The miscreants succeeded in escaping after abandoning the vehicle at village Sabneema near the brick kiln of Papu Singh (PW 12). He seized the vehicle bearing Registrastion no. DL 2 CC 5859 and prepared seizure list. He found the bullet marks on the vehicle and blood stains on its back seat. He registered Police station Case No. 9 of 2006 under sections 307, 353, 332, 120B, 333 and 34 of the IPC. The version of PW 4 was fully corroborated by his colleague Chandrika Prasad, PW 13 and as such we need not advert to his evidence in detail.

The prosecution examined PW 14 Ashwani Kumar, SI of Kotwali police station and IO of the case. PW 15 Ajay Kumar Singh is Officer-in-charge of Kotwali police station at the relevant time and 2nd IO of this case. PW 14 stated that on getting telephonic information of abduction of Prashant Jain, he along with PW 15 arrived at White House. He enquired from Ujwal Kumar Jain and his wife about the incident. He also inspected the place of occurrence. He found two gates facing north. One was on the eastern side and the other was west to it, close to Land Development Bank. According to the witness the vehicle in question was parked near the latter gate. He was informed that the scooter of Prashant Jain was lying fallen near this gate. The eastern gate of the Apartment was generally used for passage and the western gate generally remained closed. PW 11 Ujwal Kumar Jain gave written report of the occurrence which was registered as Kotwali Police station Case No. 10 of 2006. He recorded statement of PWs 1,2,3,8 as well as the informant.

One Tez Narain Singh, Havildar informed PW 4 that a car bearing registration no. as DL 2CC 5859 said to be used in abduction, was seized by Bakhtiarpur police at village Sabnima. On such information, he along with police party reached village Sabnima and found the Maruti Esteem car stranded near the brick kiln of Papu Singh. He found bullet marks on the car and blood stains inside it. He enquired about the matter from PWs 12 and 13. On enquiry, he learnt that the car initially belonged to one Shashi Bhushan Singh who sold the same to one Pankaj Kumar Das, the brother of Santosh Kumar, one of the charge sheeted and convicted accused, who died during the pendency of the appeal. He found that the car used was registered in the name of Pankaj Kumar Das, but was in charge of his brother Santosh Kumar.

PW 15 Ajay Kumar Singh was Officer-in-charge of Kotwali police station. He took up the investigation of the case on 9.1.2006 from Ashwini Kumar (PW 14). He arrested accused Santosh Kumar on Janury 9, 2006 and recorded his statement. On the basis of statement of Santosh Kumar, he arrested accused Vikky Singh and Abhishek Mishra from Jamtara on January 14, 2006. In course of investigation, on January 14, 2006, he reached village Fath Jampur, police station Didarganj and arrested one Rajesh Kumar from Barh. Thereafter he recorded the statement of Sanjay Kumar Chauhan, a relative of accused Randhir Kumar. Sanjay Kumar Chauhan revealed that one Randhir Kuamr, a relative of his used to work as a sales man in his mobile phone shop and one Abhishek Mishra, Vikky Singh and Kanhai Sao used to visit his shop. Subsequently, on December 16, 2006, he arrested Ram Kripal Sahni who disclosed that Prashant Kuamr Jain was kept in captivity in the house of Vishnudeo Sao alias Vishun Sao of village Malikpur, police station Raghopur district Vaishali. Vishun Sao is the father of accused Sanjay Sao. The victim Prashant Jain was kept in his house as captive as per instructions of accused Dilip Ravidas. Accused Ram Kripal Sahni admitted that he was keeping watch on the abducted Prashant Jain for which he was promised Rs.20,000/-per day. On the disclosure of accused Ram Kripal Sahni, the house of accused Sanjay Sao, son of Vishun Sao village Malikpur was raided. Accused Ram Kripal Sahni led PW 15 to the room of house of Vishun Sao where Prashant Jain was kept in detention. The description of the room fully tallied as described by PW 11 in his statement.

On the strength of these evidences, Additional P.P. submitted that there are sufficient materials to bring home charge under sections 364A and 120Bof the IPC against the convicted accused. 

The High Court examined whether the prosecution established a case of kidnapping for ransom. It observed: ''We find that PW 3 said that when he reached near the Apartment, he saw a white Maruti Esteem car parked near about the western gate. He found 4 to 5 persons moving in suspicious conditions. PW 8 Manikant Mishra the night guard in the White House apartment too stated that on the relevant date on 5.1.2006 he was on duty at about 10 PM. On information of PW 3, he came out and saw a white Maruti Esteem car parked facing east. On seeing him coming out, the inmates drove the car towards east. However, he memorized the registration number of the car bearing no. DL 2 CC 5859 and he returned to his seat. After sometime, he again saw the white Maruti Esteem car speeding towards west coming from the eastern side. Soon thereafter he found the scooter lying on the road near the western gate which he recognized to be of Prashant Jain. Father of the victim Ujwal Kumar Jain also recognized the scooter of his son lying in front of western gate and his son was traceless. The defence argued that it is not established that the scooter belonged to Prashant Kumar Jain. In view of positive statement of PW 9 (father of the victim), PW 1 (uncle of the victim), PW 3 an independent witness as well as PW 8 (the night guard) it is difficult to accept the defence case that it has not been established beyond doubt that the scooter belonged to Prashant Kumar Jain. 24. The statement of the victim Prashant Kumar Jain fully establishes that he was pushed from the scooter and dragged and abducted in a Maruti Esteem car. Besides this, PW 11 had stated that as soon as he reached near the turning on the road leading to his Apartment, he was pushed from his scooter by 3 to 4 persons and was dragged inside Maruti Esteem car. The statement of the victim also supplements the statement of PW 3 and PW 8 and fills up the gap as to what happened in the meantime. All these evidences establish beyond doubt that the victim Prashant Kumar Jain (PW 11) was kidnapped and abducted.''

The High Court also examined as to whether the victim was kidnapped or abducted for ransom. The Court recorded: ''On the point of ransom, the prosecution has examined PWs 6 and 7. PW 6 Aniket Kumar in his evidence stated that on the relevant date he was moving in the vehicle DL 2CC 5859 along with Abhishek Mishra and Vikky Singh from 12 Noon onwards. At about 6 PM, he was asked to board the vehicle at Fatuha. However, he boarded the vehicle at Fatuha at 11 PM. The vehicle was being driven by Abhishek Mishra. He stated that accused Abhishek Mishra and Vikky Singh told him that they had kidnapped a boy and would get a heavy amount for his return. PW 7 Alok Ranjan alias Appu is also a friend of Vikky Singh and Abhishek Mishra. He learnt on 6.1.2006 that Prashant Jain was kidnapped in a white Maruti Esteem car. After 2 to 3 days, he received a missed call from Vikky Singh. He called back, whereupon Vikky Singh informed him that Abhishek Mishra has kidnapped Prashant Jain. Vikky Singh revealed that 2 to 3 persons participated in the occurrence. The evidences of PW 6 and PW 7 establish beyond a doubt that the victim was kidnapped for ransom.''

Neeraj Kumar, amicus curiae submitted that PWs 6 and 7 should have been made an accused in this case as they were both the friends of Vikky and Abhishek and were also moving in the car along with him. But the High Court felt that his submission was not well founded because ''There is no material on record to establish that PWs 6 and 7 had any inkling of conspiracy to kidnap Prashant Kumar Jain (PW 11). Furthermore, none of them were admittedly present around the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The case of the prosecution is that PW 6 boarded the car after the victim was handed over to other accused at Didarganj by accused persons. As such the former did not find the victim in the car. Furthermore the defence has not produced any evidence or material to conclude that Pws 6 and 7 shared a common intention with the accused to kidnap PW 11. 

The High Court concluded: ''we are of the considered view that the prosecution has fully established the factum of kidnapping of Prashant Kuar Jain for ransom which brings the case under purview of section 364A and 120B of the IPC. The vital issue is whether all these appellants were part of the conspiracy in execution of which the victim was abducted.''

Abhimanyu Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that Sanjay Chauhan is ‘Mama’ of accused Randhir Kumar, co-accused Vikky, Abhishek Mishra and others persons used to come to his mobile phone ship to meet Randhir Kumar. 

The High Court observed: ''We find that Sanjay Chauhan has not been examined as witnesses in the case. Thus, the very person from whom the police is said to have received the informations about other accused meeting Randhir Kumar has not been produced before the court for corroboration. Even assuming the disclosure of Sanjay Chauhan to PW 14 to be true, still the same would not constitute any offence merely because some of the persons involved in a crime used to meet a person on and off, would not render him an accused in absence of at least some corroborative evidence, which is lacking in his case. 32. In this view of the matter, we find that there is absolutely no legal evidence against him and as such, we acquit Randhir Kumar of the charges under section 364A and 120B of the IPC. He is accordingly discharged of the liabilities of bail bonds. In the result, Cr. Appeal No.1751 of 2007 is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence against him is set aside.''

The High Court examined the case of Sanjay Sao and Ram Kripal Sahni together. As per the prosecution evidence unfolded during the trial, it was true that these two accused persons did not participate in actual commission of kidnapping of the victim. But it was the prosecution case that Ram Kirpal Sahni in his confession stated that Dilip Rabidas has arranged the place of Bisundeo Sah, the father of the accused, Sanjay Sao for captivity of the abducted person. Ram Kirpal Sahni in his confessional statement had stated that he kept watch on the victim as he was assured a sum of Rs.20,000/- per day. Furthermore Ram Kirpal Sahni was the person who showed the IO the house in which victim Prashant Kumar Jain was kept in captivity for about 10 days. The house so shown by accused Ram Kirpal Sahni fully tallied with the description of the house narrated by Prashant Kumar Jain as well as PW 15, the IO of the case. Prashant Kumar Jain in his evidence has given complete detail of the manner of occurrence.

The counsels of the appellants and the amicus curiae submitted that confession before the police cannot be used as evidence against the accused persons in view of section 25 of the Evidence Act. 

The High Court observed: ''36. We have no dispute on the aforesaid proposition of law. But as per section 27 of the Evidence Act, any discovery in consequence of the information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer would be admissible to the extent of the discovery. On the disclosure of accused Ram Kripal Sahni, the house of accused Sanjay Sao was raided where the victim was kept in captivity, which establishes that accused Sanjay Sao and accused Ram Kripal Sahni were active partners in the kidnapping and each were performing a role assigned to them in facilitating the offence.''

The High Court took up the case of Abhishek Mishra, the appellant of Cr.Appeal No.1161 of 2007. It was relevant to state here that the case of co-accused Vikky Singh were separated on the ground of juvenility. It was true that neither PW 8 (the night guard) nor PW 11, the kidnapped person, Prashant Kumar Jain identified Abhishek Mishra by face as in course of kidnapping, the accused persons had not kept their face covered with Muffler etc. Besides this, the victim stated that while he was being abducted in the car, he heard the accused persons taking the names of Abhishek Mishra, Vikky Singh and others. As submitted by the defence mere taking of the names would not establish that the said person had participated in the occurrence itself. PW 4 Basawan Ram, Officer-in-charge, Bakhtiarpur police station, in his evidence, stated that in the torch light he identified two persons sitting in the said Maruti Esteem car. He identified the person in the dock (Abhiskek Mishra) as the person driving the vehicle. The defence argued that Abhishek Mishra was not put on TI parade immediately and was identified by PW 4 belatedly in court and as such the same in itself would not bear any evidentiary value. However, the evidence of PWs 5,6 and 7 establish beyond all doubts, active participation of the witness in the crime. PW 5 stated that at the relevant date he was in the Maruti Esteem car which was being driven by Vicky and Abhishek Mishra was also sitting in the car. The evidence of this witness was truthful. Furthermore, there is no material to doubt the statements of the said witness as he was a friend of Abhishek Mishra and Vikky Singh. Similarly PW 7 stated that the whole day from 12 Noon to 6 PM he was in the said car along with Abhishek Mishra and Vikky. The latter was driving the car and they asked him to board the car at Fatuha for going to Rajgir. PW 6, accordingly went to Fatuha on the same night and boarded the same Maruti Esteem car at 11 PM along with Vikky and Abhishek Mishra. The car proceeded towards Bakhtiarpur and during their conversation one of them informed PW 6 that they had kidnapped a boy for ransom. The evidence of PW 6 supported the statements of PWs. 3,4,5 and form a complete chain which establish that accused Abhishek Mishra was one of the occupants of the car in which the victim Prashant Kumar Jain was dragged into the car and kidnapped on 5.1.2006 at 10 PM.

The amicus curiae submitted that as per PW 6 he was seated in the back seat of the car. As per PW 11 he was made to lie on the floor of the rear seat and blind folded. In case PW 6 was also sitting in the car from Fatuha to Bakhtiarpur he could not have failed to notice the victim in the car. 

The High Court noted tha the submissions of counsel appearing for the appellants seemed very attractive at the first instance but the factual situations are different. As per the victim, he was taken off from the car after 25 to 30 minutes of journey. It would appear from the evidence of PW 15 that the victim was made to step down from the car near Fateh jam under Didarganj police station near the PCO of Dilip Ravidas. From the evidence of PW 15 Ajay Kumar Singh, Officer-in-charge of Kotwali Police Station and 2nd IO of the case, it would appear that this place comes prior to Fatuha en-route to Bakhtiarpur. The victim was off loaded from this vehicle at around this place, as such PW 6 could not have possibly found the victim in the car when he boarded at 11 PM at Fatuha. The victim was abducted at around 10.15 PM and according to him he was off loaded after 20 to 25 minutes. This means he was off loaded before 11 PM, when PW 6 Aniket Kumar boarded the car. This explained as to why the victim did not hear the exchange of firing which took place on the High way near Bakhtiarpur which is good 25 to 30 minutes further east of Fatuha where police was on alert for trapping the vehicle and the kidnappers. 

Justice concluded: "Thus, in our considered view, on the strength of evidence on record, the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charges under sections 364A and 120B of the IPC against appellant Abhishekh Mishra. 41. In the result, appeals of Sanjay Sah, Ram Kripal Sahny and Abhishek Mishra are dismissed. Their bail bonds are accordingly cancelled and they are directed to surrender immediately before the court below for serving out remaining part of their sentence."

As per newspaper reports based on the version of the police, Prashant Jain's abductors-Chandrashekhar of Sipara, Upendra of Bhojpur and Viru Singh of Sahpur were caught and arrested during a routine checking of vehicles in Sheikhpura on March 28, 2006. The police had claimed that Chandrashekhar and Upendra who were allegedly part of Mahatma gang of Mokama had confessed their involvement in his kidnapping. Police had also suspected involvement of Tunni Singh gang of Bakhtiyarpur. No knows what happened to these cock-bull stories which were fed to media. 

Prashant Jain had filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court in late 2005 but on January 5, 2006, he was kidnapped and later release by kidnappers. But the core issue is the fate of Prashant Jain's case in the High Court. If the case is still pending, the Court may get the following questions probed: 

Why would Shilpi Jain-Gautam Singh commit suicide half-naked in the garage of Sadhu Yadav's residence? 

Who told the police that two dead bodies lying in the garage of Sadhu Yadav's residence? 

Who informed Sadhu Yadav about the arrival of the police at his residence? 

Why was the car driven to the police station instead of towing it from the scene? 

Why was the police in a tearing hurry to conduct a funeral and post-mortem? 

Why didn't the CBI approach the court when Sadhu Yadav refused DNA testing? 

Why is the name of Rakesh Kumar Maurya alias Samrat Chaudhary relevant in Shilpi Jain-Gautam Singh rape-murder case? 

Subsequent to his kidnapping, it is apparent that Prashant Jain could not muster the courage to pursue the Shilpi Jain-Gautam Singh kidnapping-rape-murder case in the High Court during 2006-2025.