Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra in a POCSO case

In Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated May 11, 2026, wherein, it set aside the order by Patna High Court's Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra dated March 11, 2026. The order concluded:"6. It is pertinent to note at this juncture itself and for the limited purpose of considering the prayer for bail, that the statements of the recused girls which have been recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and particularly two victims associated with the orchestra group where petitioner was working would disclose that there were no recent evidence of sexual
assault and three co-accused Gena Sah, Rajat Sardar @Rajjat Kumar @ Rajat Kumar and Subhash Kumar have since then granted regular bail by the jurisdictional High Court. Hence, on the ground of parity, petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail. 7. The impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the High Court is set aside and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court deems fit to impose, including the condition of directing the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing."

The petitioner was arraigned as an accused No. 11 in the FIR No. 8 of 2025, registered at Police Station Women Police Station, District Betiah, for the offence punishable under Section 64, 65(1), 143(1), 145, 95, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 6, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 and Section 16, 17, and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, was seeking regular bail. The record disclosed that investigation had been concluded and charge-sheet was filed and two witnesses were already examined. It was the case of the prosecution that minor girls were found in various orchestra groups who had been trafficked and they were sexually exploitated. Even according to the FIR, the petitioner was neither the owner or Manager of the orchestra group and he was only a employee (Announcer) in Chhoti New Musical Orchestra Dhamaka Group.

Earlier, in Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court had passed a 3-page long order dated March 11, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"...the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below." The name of respondent no. 2 has been kept anonymous. 

The petitioner sought bail in connection with Bettiah Mahila P.S. case of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 64, 65(1), 143(1), 145, 98 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 75 and 79 of the J.J. Act and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. This was the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner had renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected on merit by Justice Mishra of the High Court vide 3-page long order dated August 13, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31511 of 2025, taking into account the nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence and involvement of the petitioner in the offence.  

The order dated August 13, 2025 recorded that the informant filed a complaint before the ADJ, Champaran, based on an tip-off from National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) constituted under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, which led to raids at seven locations by the police team. Sixteen girls were rescued. The victims gave statements under Section 180 BNSS alleging repeated sexual assaults, exploitation for dance, and being forced into sexual activities by various accused associated with different orchestra groups.

APP for the State and counsel for the informant had opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. They submitted that on perusal of record it appeared that the several victims were minor girl. It was specifically submitted that petitioner, namely, Dhamu Sah used to inappropriately touch the body of victim, during dance on the stage, whereas petitioner, namely, Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey, had established illicit relation with one of the victims.

In compliance of the order dated January 17, 2026, a report dated February 12, 2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the report, it appeared that two (2) out of nineteen (19) charge sheet witnesses had been examined in the case. It was also reported that trial was likely to be concluded within a period of nine months. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the petitioner was languishing in judicial custody since February 23, 2025 without any rhymes or reason, having no criminal antecedent. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. The APP for the State had opposed the prayer for grant of bail. The APP had further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539 (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein, in paragraph No.14, Supreme Court had observed as under: “14. Ordinarily inserious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.”  

Justice Mishra observed: "7. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on." Supreme Court has reversed the order by the High Court. 

Supreme Court directs Sub-Judge-I, Patna to dispose of a Title Suit of 2018 within one year

In Usha Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's  Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N Bhatti passed a 3-page long order dated May 4, 2026, wherein, it wrote: "....we direct that Title Suit No.41 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Sub-Judge-I, Patna be disposed of within a period of one year from today." 

The case was instituted by the petitioner. The petitioner’s complaint to the Station House Officer was registered as non-FIR No.20/2013. Based on the Police Report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, qua the land. On 13.06.2013, the SDM, Sadar converted the Section 144, Cr.P.C. proceedings to Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and transferred the same to the Court of Executive Magistrate, Sadar. The Executive Magistrate, Patna Sadar vide order dated 2nd December, 2014 passed the final order declaring respondent No.7 to be in possession over the disputed land. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge but was unsuccessful. Further a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court which is resulted in the impugned order.

By the impugned 12-page long order dated September 10, 2024, Justice Bibek Chaudhury of the High Court after noticing the pendency of the Civil Suit, namely, Title Suit No.41 of 2018 before the Sub-Judge-I, Patna filed by the petitioner herein and while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., relegated the claim of ownership to be decided by the Civil Court. 

Justice Chaudhuri had concluded: "25. It is needless to say that the object 145 of the Cr.P.C. is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace by maintaining one or either of the parties in possession, which the Court finds they had immediately before the dispute, until the actual right of the parties has been determined by the Civil Court. 26. Therefore, the Civil Court is the appropriate forum for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of any property. The issue as to whether any person has the right to possess the property or not cannot be decided by the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. shall protect the existing possession, be it lawful or unlawful. In order to evict a person/persons from possession of a particular piece of land, decree of a Civil Court is required. 27. It is ascertained from the record that the petitioner did not appear to contest the case before the learned Executive Magistrate and the order under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was passed ex parte. The order in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2015 was also passed ex parte. 28. The petitioner has not come up with a case that the impugned order suffer from abuse of the process of the Court or the impugned order is required to be set aside to secure ends of justice. Both the parties are claiming ownership over the property on the basis of certain documents, veracity of which can only be decided by the Civil Court. 29. Under the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any ground to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case is thus, dismissed, on contest. 

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case had arise out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of an order dated July 16, 2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, VI Court at Patna, in Criminal Revision of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the Judge had dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioner against the order, dated December 2, 2014, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Patna Sadar in Case No. 520 (M) of 2013 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner had submitted that the land in question originally belonged to one Babu Jodhan Prasad Singh and subsequently by successive transfer, the land was owned by the vendor of the petitioner. 

The case of the petitioner is that for land of Tauzi No. 131 of Mauza – Jaganpura, Babu Shiv Narayan Chaudhary and Jodhan Prasad filed a Rent Suit No. 11 of 1910 and thereafter in Executive Case No. 1015 of 1913, whole Tauzi including Plot No. 1200, measuring 96 decimals came into their possession. The petitioner has narrated the entire story of devolution of interest in the said property by his vendor, Pramod Kumar Sinha. Further case of the petitioner is that the Respondents on the basis of fake and forged document tried to disturbed the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said land and as such she was constrained to file a Land Dispute Case No. 27 of 2013-14 in the Court of DCLR, Patna Sadar under the provisions of Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009. In the said proceeding, the Respondents appeared before the DCLR in pursuance of notice and filed written statement therein. After hearing the parties, the DCLR held that the petitioners have title and possession over the land by its order dated 5th of October, 2013. An order of declaration of title and possession of the petitioner was also passed by the DCLR. It was further directed that the petitioner has been forcibly and illegally dispossessed and she may be given possession of the land in question. On the basis of police report, given in Case No. 20 of 2013, dated 12th of April, 2013, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Patna, initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter 2013, the Executive Magistrate converted the said proceeding to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner was the first party and Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 10 were the second party. 

The Executive Magistrate, Patna Sadar vide order, dated 2nd of December, 2014, passed the final order declaring the possession of the Respondents over the disputed land. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Cr. Revision before the Sessions Judge, Patna bearing Cr. Revisional No. 32 of 2015. The said Revision was subsequently transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge – VI Court at Patna for hearing and disposal. The petitioner was informed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions – VI, Patna that the date of hearing of the Revision would be fixed on 21st of July, 2015. However, on that date, the petitioner came to know that the Revision Application was finally disposed of by the Court of Revision vide order dated 16th of July, 2015. It is contended by the petitioner that when the petitioner’s ownership and possession was decided and declared by the DCLR under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, the said order is binding upon the learned Executive Magistrate. The learned Executive Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court did not consider the said fact and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. By filing a supplementary affidavit, dated 3rd of February, 2016 that the Cr. Revision No. 32 of 2015 was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge – VI, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of hearing. On 6th of August, 2024, the petitioner filed 3rd supplementary affidavit, stating, inter alia, that after purchase of the land in question, the husband of the petitioner Sunil Kumar (HUF), mutated his name in respect of the said land and has been paying malguzari to the Government of Bihar. The HUF of Sunil Kumar was a partner in M/s Satyendra Kumar & Company and the said land was mortgaged to Indian Overseas Bank on 3rd of November, 2006 till 24th of July, 2015. The Executive Magistrate passed order dated 26th of April, 2014 in the absence of the petitioner and the case was posted for evidence of the 1st party. On 30th of August, 2014, the case was posted for ex parte hearing against the petitioner. 

The Advocate of the petitioner, who are entrusted to look after the case, did not take any action and accordingly the case was fixed for evidence of the second party on 22nd of November, 2014 and final order has been passed on 2nd of December, 2014. It is alleged that there was over-writing on the dates
fixed for hearing of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner and her son filed Title Suit No. 41 of 2018 in the Court of the Sub-Judge-I, Patna for declaration of title and permanent injunction, restraining the defendants / second party from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. The said suit is still pending before the learned Sessions Judge, XIV Court, Patna, for consideration of the petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, filed by the petitioner.

In such a backdrop, the Supreme Court has observed: "4. We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order."