Supreme Court grants absolute relief to Manoj Manzil till disposal of appeals

In Manoj Manzil vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices  Justices Sanjay Karol andAugustine George Masih passed an order dated January 30, 2026 wherein it made its interim orders absolute till the disposal of the appeals.

Subsequent to High Court's verdict dated October 7, 2025, Manoj Manzil had filed a Special Leave Petition  (Criminal) October 9, 2025 in the Supreme Court. It was verified on October 14, 2025.   It was registered on October 16, 2025. 

On October 15, 2025, Justice R. Mahadevan heard the matter in Chambers and passed an order which reads: "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer sought for in the application seeking exemption from surrendering is granted till the first date of listing before the regular Court. The Interlocutory Application seeking exemption from surrendering is allowed accordingly. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Court." The SLP arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated October 7, 2025 by the High Court.

Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Karol and N. K. Singh passed an order dated October 27, 2026. It reads:"1. Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 07.10.2025 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.216/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, titled “Manoj Manzil vs. The State of Bihar”. 2. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, invites our attention to the testimony of the Doctor (PW-06) (at page no.257) as also the post- mortem report (at page no.144). It is argued that, in view thereof, the ocular versions of PW-01, PW-02, PW-03, PW-04 & PW-08 do not correspond with the nature of injury allegedly inflicted by the assailant on the deceased. The alleged eye witnesses are neither reliable nor their testimonies are worthy of credence. It is further submitted that the High Court committed an error in ignoring this aspect while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Issue notice, returnable on 01.12.2025. 4. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Let steps for service be taken within two weeks. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the learned standing counsel for the State of Bihar. 6. In the notice itself, let it be mentioned that the respondent is required to file the counter affidavit and reply to the interlocutory application(s), if any, before the next date of listing. 7. Trial Court/Original Records and the case diary be called for. 8. In the Chamber proceedings, vide order dated 15.10.2025 the Interlocutory Application No.261436 of 2025 seeking exemption from surrendering is allowed. Liberty is granted to seek recall of that order."

On December 1, 2025, the same Division Bench passed an order. It reads:"4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the learned standing counsel for the State of Bihar. 5. In the notice itself, let it be mentioned that the respondent is required to file the counter affidavit and reply to the interlocutory application(s), if any, before the next date of listing. 6. In SLP @ Diary Nos.61467/2025 & 61659/2025, the petitioners are exempted from surrendering till the next date of listing. Liberty is granted to the respondents to seek recall of the order, should the need so arise." 

On January 30, 2026, the Division Bench passed an order which reads: "4. Interim order(s) is/are made absolute till the disposal of the appeals."

Also read: High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ajit Kumar upholds trial court's judgment in murder case against Manoj Manzil & 18 Others 

Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri, Dr. Anshuman sets aside trial court judgement, reverses previous order by Justice Rakesh Kumar which relied on "inadmissible evidence"

Ajay Kumar Thakur's cogent arguments makes the High Court reverse orders by Justice Rakesh Kumar in 2018, Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh in 2021 and Justice Arvind Srivastava in 2024, and to set aside untenable and indefensible judgement of conviction of 2018 by the judge from the Araria Trial Court. 

In Vijay Kumar Yadav @ Vivek Kumar @ Golu vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 15-page long judgement dated December 17, 2025, wherein,  it concluded:" 31. In the instant case, the I.O. did not collect any certificate from IDBI Bank to prove the SMS sent to the mobile phone of the deceased from service provider. Certification of CCTV footage electronically generated money receipt from ATM swipe machine was also not obtained from the concerned authority by the I.O. Prosecution did not take any attempt to examine the shop owner of Maa Lakhi Jewelers. The appellant was not identified by any independent witness except the I.O. 32. For the reasons stated above, we have no other alternative but to hold that the trial court illegally without considering the basic requirement of the Evidence Act and the manner in which the charge can be proved held the accused guilty for committing offence and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. For such gross mistake, the accused unnecessarily remained in custody for more than 7 years. As a result, the instant appeal is allowed. 33. The judgment of conviction dated 11.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.04.2018 is hereby set aside. Let the appellant be released forthwith in connection with Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2017 arising out of Araria P.S. Case No. 856 of 2017, if not required in other case." 

The appellant was in custody approximately for more than 7 years while suffering sentence. The criminal appeal was filed on May 29, 2018 and registered on June 4, 2018. 

Justice Chaudhari who authored he judgement observed: "3. We are not constrained to note that this case is a classic example of conviction upon inadmissible evidence by the learned trial Judge. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the appellant preferred a series of applications for suspension of sentence and bail, but his prayer was constantly rejected by the High Court, which also relied on inadmissible evidence." 

Notably, although Y.C. Verma, senior advocate had submitted before the Division Bench of Justices Rakesh Kumar and Arvind Srivastava on August 9, 2018 that the case was completely based on circumstantial evidence without any proof of completion of chain and, as such, it was not a case for conviction, however trial Judge had incorrectly passed Judgement of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, he had submitted that it was a fit case for passing order for suspension of sentence and granting bail to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. In his 3-page long order dated August 9, 2018, Justice Kumar had concluded:"Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have also cursorily examined the evidence on record and after going through the same, it is evident that during investigation, the appellant was apprehended and his confessional statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The confession led to recovery of certain facts, which were only within the knowledge of the appellant. His confession also led to recovery of ATM Card of the deceased and, thereafter, it was noticed that ATM Card was subsequently used and amount was transferred. The learned trial Judge considered that it was completion of chain of circumstantial evidence and, thereafter, he passed the judgment of conviction and sentence. The appellant was solely tried and held guilty. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to pass favourable order. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail stands dismissed." 

Notably, the Division Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Singh and Arvind Srivastava passed a 2-page long order dated February 2, 2021 reiterating the order by Justice Kumar. Justice Singh who authored the order, had concluded:"By way of the instant interlocutory application preferred under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with section 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, has renewed his prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal. A similar prayer made on his behalf was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2018. For the reasons assigned in the order dated 09.08.2018, since there is no changed circumstance, we are not inclined to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, his prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is rejected.Interlocutory application stands rejected." 

The Division Bench of Justices Arvind Srivastava and Sunil Dutta Mishra passed a 2-page long order dated January 3, 2024 reiterated Justice Kumar's order when the appellant prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of appeal. The counsel for the appellant had submitted that the prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier twice rejected by this Court. Now the fresh ground for bail of the appellant was that he was languishing in custody since December 28, 2016, as such he remained in custody for more than seven years and there was no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up for hearing in near future. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the appellant by contending that the prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier twice rejected by this Court on merit. He also submitted that although the appellant remained in custody for more than seven years but it  came in evidence that the confession of the appellant led to recovery of certain facts which were only within the knowledge of him. His confession also led to recovery of ATM Card of the deceased and thereafter, it was noticed that ATM Card was subsequently used and amount was also transferred. Justice Srivastava who authored the order, had concluded:"As such, the prayer for bail of the appellant is not fit to be reconsidered. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. His prayer for bail is again rejected."

Justice Chaudhary had reserved the judgement on December 9, 2025. The compelling submission by Ajay Kumar Thakur, counsel for the petitioner on December 9 when he concluded the argument and made the Court change it's mind and reverse orders by Justice Rakesh Kumar in 2018, Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh in 2021 and Justice Arvind Srivastava in 2024.

It is evident that it took the High Court over seven years to appreciate the argument of the  counsel of the petitioner. 

The judgement was delivered upon hearing an appeal under Section 374 (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the convict assailing the judgment of conviction dated April 11, 2018 and the order of sentence dated April 17, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd Court, Araria in a Sessions Trial of 2017. The case arose out of Araria P.S. case of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/. He was also convicted for committing offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- only. Substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment was directed to run concurrently.

One Shambhu Dharkar, a village Chowkidar of Azam Nagar, Kushimar village under the police station and district Araria received an information on December 23, 2016 at about 08:30 AM that dead body of one unknown person was kept on the southern side of village Diwari Fatak Bridge in a bamboo groove of one Vishundev Yadav. In order to work out the said information, the chowkidar went to the said spot. He found that police party also reached the spot. He found one unknown dead body with blackish ligature mark around the neck and bleeding from the left ear. Seeing the dead body, the chowkidar approximately ascertained his age around 35 years. He was wearing a black jacket, pink colored Shirt, a blue colored warm vest, red colored T-shirt, white colored vest and blue colored jeans full pant. There was a black thread on his neck with a locket inscribed thereon 786 and 92. He also found a blank cartridge of 315 bore in one of his pocket. Local people assembled there. Nobody could identify him. It seemed to the Chowkidar that the deceased was murdered at some other place and his dead body was tied with a Simul tree by a rope. A belt was tied around his neck.

One Ashok Kumar Singh, Sub-inspector of police recorded the statement of the said Shambhu Dharkar and treated the same as FIR. On the basis of the said statement, duly signed by Shambhu Dharkar, the SHO of Araria police station registered FIR dated December 23, 2016 under Section 302/301 IPC against unknown miscreants and entrusted Sub-Inspector King Kundan to investigate into the case. The I.O., on completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 302/34, 201/34, and 120(B) of the IPC against Vijay Kumar Yadav. After filing of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Principal Sessions Judge transferred the case record to the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Araria for trial and disposal. The trial judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 302/34 and 201/34 as well as 120 (B) of the IPC on 13 June 2017. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, trial of the case commenced. In order to bring home the charge against the accused/appellant, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. None of the witnesses could identify the accused. They also did not know how the deceased was murdered. The identity of the deceased was first ascertained on December 24, 2016 when a photograph of the deceased was published by the investigating authority in Urdu Daily. Seeing the photograph, PW-8 Md. Inteqab Alam identified the photograph of the deceased as his brother'S. In his affidavit, he stated that his brother Niyaz Ahmed was missing since December 22, 2016.  After he saw the photograph in Urdu Daily on December 24, 2016, he identified the deceased to be his brother Niyaz Ahmed and went to P.S. Araria. From the P.S., he came to know that the dead body was kept in the post-mortem room. He went there and identified the dead body as of his brother's. Thereafter, he filed an application and received the dead body of his brother. 

The appellant was made an accused in Araria P.S. Case of 2016 by the I.O. on the basis of the evidence which he collected during the investigation of the case. 

Notably, Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. It is a rule of thumb that a confession made to a police officer, of whatever rank and at whatever time, is inadmissible in evidence under the purview of Section 25. Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act states: "No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved against such person."

The confession is required to be recorded by a Magistrate. In the instant appeal the confession of an accused while in custody can only be recorded by a Magistrate in terms of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 164 of the CrPC. Any statement recorded by an I.O. during investigation of the case of any witness or an accused is a statement under Section 161 of the CrPC and Section 162(1) clearly states that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII of the CrPC shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, except to contradict such witness in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the evidence of the appellant admitting the guilt before the I.O. is not admissible in evidence and the said document could not be marked as exhibit by the trial court. The trial court committed illegality in relying on such statement allegedly made by the appellant. 

Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. Section 27 of the said Act states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from an accused of any offence while he is in custody, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. In other words, the language of Section 27 of the Evidence Act indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person who is in the custody of the police in connection with an offence, it must relate distinctly to the facts so discovered. The phrase 'facts thereby discovered is preceded with words "that so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly". The word 'distinctly' as used in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is made to exclude certain language and to limit and confine the information which may be proved within definite limits and not necessarily to include everything which may relate to that information. The word “distinctly” indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably, apparently, used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information. Therefore, only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase 'facts discovered'. 

Justice Chaudhary observed: "28. In the instant case, the trial court in violation of Section 25 and Section 26 wrongly brought entire statement of the accused in evidence marking the same as Exhibit-9. 29. Had it been the fact that the accused made such a statement before the I.O. while he was in custody, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, i.e., the discovery of the black purse, ATM card, bill of Maa Lakhi Jewelers, and original receipt generated from the ATM machine, etc., would have been admissible in evidence. It is needless to say that the discovery of a fact must be distinctly connected with the statement of the accused; when the discovery of a fact is distinctly connected in consequence of information, that part of the statement made by the accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act." He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Govind vs. State of Haryana, reported 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2456 

He added: "There is no evidence as to whether the appellant accompanied the police party and the independent witness during discovery of ATM Card of the deceased and other materials. The witnesses to whom prosecution claimed to be the seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution case. From their evidence, it is clear that they were not present at the time of seizure of ATM Card of the deceased and other materials. They put their signature on the seizure list at Maranga P.S. on being instructed by a police officer. Therefore, seizure of the materials was also not proved. 30. Last but not the least, Call Details Report, CAIF, receipt generated from ATM Swipe Machine are electronic records which could have been proved only under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act." 

The verdict by High Court's Division Bench of Justices Chaudhuri, and Dr. Anshuman has rectified the glaring blunder committed by previous orders of the High Court.  

Justice Sandeep Kumar quashes rejection order by Bihar State Remission Board for pre-mature release of a life convict

In Ashok Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered a 15-page long judgement dated October 10, 2025, wherein, he quashed the order dated September 12, 2023 passed by Bihar State Remission Board rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for his pre-mature release saying, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pre-mature release. It was one of the two judgements delivered by the High Court on October 10, 2025. 

Justice Kumar concluded: ''13. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the authorities for remission in light of the aforesaid judgment and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the remission board in accordance with law and in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Supra). The application of the petitioner shall be disposed of within three months of its filing.''

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the decision of the State Remission Board dated September 12, 2023 so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby the State Remission Board had rejected the proposal of the petitioner for his pre-mature release interalia on the ground that under clause (iv) (ka) and (kha) of notification No. 3106 dated December 10, 2002 the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pre-mature release. He had also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release and release him in connection with Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2006 arising out of Fulwaria P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 on the ground that now the petitioner has already completed more than 22 years of sentence with remission and more than 17 years of his physical incarceration, taking into consideration that the case of the petitioner has been covered under 1984 Policy prevailing at the relevant time of his conviction since the petitioner was convicted on April 10, 2006 and the notification no. 3106 dated December 10, 2002 came into force with effect from July 2, 2007.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his application for early release as he had completed 19 years in actual imprisonment. The petitioner was convicted under section 364, 302, 201 of the Indian penal Code and were sentenced to death by the District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2006 arose out of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 vide Judgement dated April 5, 2006 and order on the point of sentence dated April 10, 2006. Subsequently, the High Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 329 of 2006 had commuted the death sentence of the petitioner to life imprisonment. 

The petitioner had previously approached the High Court through Cr.W.J.C. No. 103 of 2022, for pre-mature release after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment and the same was disposed vide order dated July 18, 2023. The relevant paragraphs of the order reads:-

“8. From perusal of the impugned order of the State Remission Board dated 19.05.2021 so far as it relates
to the petitioner, it transpires that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected by merely quoting the provisions of Clause IV (क) of the Remission Policy and no further reasons have been assigned by the Board as to how the nature of offences committed by the petitioner comes under the purview of any other offence having similar effect of rape, dacoity and terrorist activities and as such is covered under Clause IV (क) of the Remission Policy. The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature, as such, in my opinion, the same is not sustainable under the law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order of State Remission Board dated 19.05.2021 so far as it relates to the 
petitioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Remission Board for reconsideration of the proposal of premature release of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

10. It is made clear that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed by a reasoned order by the State Remission Board within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

The contention of the petitioner was that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 1195 of 2021) and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 453 of 2021).

Justice Kumar recorded that the counsel for the State Prabhu Narayan Sharma could not defend the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in view of the judgment of the High Court in Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Relying on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra, after quoting the minutes of the meeting dated December 23, 2020, Justice Kumar observed: "In view of the afore-quoted judgments, the impugned order cannot be sustained." 
 

High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ajit Kumar upholds trial court's judgment in murder case against Manoj Manzil & 18 Others

Judgement records that in written application by informant, 24 persons and other unknown persons were named as accused, ex-MLA, Manoj Manzil's name figured at Serial No. 18 

In Manoj Manzil vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ajit Kumar delivered a 72-page long judgement dated October 7, 2025, wherein, it upheld upon the judgment of conviction dated February 13, 2024 and the order of sentence dated February 13, 2024 passed by Special Judge of M.P/M.L.A. Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur at Ara in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2019 which arose out of Azimabad, Bhojpur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2015. The judgment was delivered after hearing the three appeals against the judgement by the Special Judge. The High Court's Division Bench did not find any perversity in the findings of the trial court. The judgements of the High Court's Division Bench was authored by Justice Prasad. It is one of the nine judgments delivered by the High Court on October 7, 2025. 

The other eight judgments were delivered in Ranjeet Sah  vs. The State of Bihar, Ramesh Prajapati vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Malvika Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Ram Gopal Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari @ Sanjeev Kumar Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Gopal Krishna Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Amitabh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and Shamsher Singh Awadhwale vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 

In Manoj Manzil case, the trial court had convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 149 IPC. The appellants have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, they have to also undergo three months simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 364/149 IPC, they have to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. For the offence punishable under Section 201/149 IPC, they have to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 

The judgement has five sections, namely, Prosecution Case, Findings of the Learned Trial Court, Submissions on behalf of the Appellants, Submissions on behalf of the State and Consideration. From page no. 30, page no. 24 onward, the High Court provided its "consideration" and findings till the final para no. 60 at page no. 72.    

In the penultimate para of his judgment, Justice Prasad wrote:''Thus, the plea of the defence that the dead body was an unclaimed body which has been connected with the present case would not inspire confidence of this Court. There is no evidence at all that any Insurance claim was obtained by PW-8. We have already taken note of the judgment in the case of S. Kaleeswaran (supra) which says that conviction may take place even if the dead body is not found. Once PW-8 has been found to be a wholly reliable witness, his evidence with regard to killing of his father by the appellants at the place of occurrence and then the fact that the dead body could not be traced despite hectic search by him, his family members and the I. O. (PW-9) fully proved the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts.''  

Justice Prasad concluded: "In ultimate analysis we find no plausible reason to interfere with the judgments of the learned trial court. All these appeals would fail, they are dismissed accordingly. 58. Appellant Manoj Manjil in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 216 of 2024, appellants (1) Ravindra Chaudhary, (2) Guddu Chaudhary and (3) Rohit Chaudhary in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 2024 and appellants (1) China Ram, (2) Manoj Chaudhary, (3) Nand Kumar Chaudhary, (4) Bharat Ram, (5) Triloki Ram, (6) Prem Ram, Babban Chaudhary, (8) Pawan Chaudhary, (9) Gabbar Chaudhary, (10) Ram Bali Chaudhary, (11) Shiv Bali Chaudhary, (12) Ramadhar Chaudhary, (13) Sarvesh Chaudhary, (14) Ramanand Prasad, (15) Tanman Chaudhary, (16) Prabhu Chaudhary, (17) Jai Kumar Yadav, (18) Nandu Yadav and (19) Chandra Dhan Rai of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 510 of 2024 are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. 59. They are directed to surrender before the learned trial court within one week from today to serve the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court, failing which learned trial court shall immediately take appropriate coercive measures to secure their custody."

The informant (PW-8), namely, Chandan Kumar Singh in his written application had alleged that his father, namely, Jay Prakash Singh was abducted and after his murder his dead body has been hidden. The informant and his father were coming together when (1) China Ram, (2) Bharat Ram, (3), Triloki Ram, (4) Prabhu Chaudhary, (5) Ramanand Prasad, (6) Chandraghan Ram, (7) Jai Kumar Yadav, (8) Nandu Yadav, (9) Tantan Chaudhary, (10) Manoj Chaudhary, (11) Sarvesh Chaudhary, (12) Pavan Chaudhary, (13) Nand Kumar, (14) Ram Bali, (15) Guddu Chaudhary, (16) Gabbar Chaudhary, (17) Prem Ram, (18) Manoj Manjil, (19) Jawahir Paswan, (20) Baban Chaudhary, (21) Ramadhar Chaudhary, (22) Ravindra Chaudhary, (23) Shiv Bali, (24) Rohit Chaudhary, and other unknown persons caught the informant’s father when his Aam Sabha had come to an end. While returning home, they caught hold of his father and started assaulting him by lathi, danda, bricks and stones instigating to kill him as he belongs to an upper caste. The informant somehow saved his life. The accused persons assaulted his father mercilessly as a result whereof he died on the spot. They also hid his dead body. The time of the occurrence was about 06:00-06:30 Hours. 

On the basis of this written application, Azimabad P.S. Case No. 51 of 2015 dated August 22, 2015 was registered under Sections 364/34, 302, 201 IPC against the accused persons. After investigation police submitted first chargesheet being Chargesheet No. 70 of 2015 dated December 31, 2015 under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC against Manoj Manjil and Manjoj Chaudhary who were in custody and 14 others showing them absconder keeping investigation open against other accused. Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet being Chargesheet No. 26 of 2016 dated May 31, 2016 was submitted under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC against (1) Ramadhar Chaudhary, (2) Sarvesh Chaudhary, (3) Chandra Dhan Rai, (4) Ramanand Prasad keeping investigation open against other accused. Another supplementary chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 08 of 2018 dated January 31, 2018 was submitted under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC against (1) Jai Kumar Yadav, (2) Nandu Yadav and (3) Prabhu Chaudhary. 

The trial court vide order dated March 15, 2019 took cognizance of the offences under the mentioned Sections and committed the records to Sessions Court. Thereafter, Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2019 was registered.

The charges were read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, vide order dated April 13, 2022, charges were framed under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. Thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. The appellants denied all the allegations and took a plea that they are innocent.

Justice Prasad has recorded: ''The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.''

The trial court had relied upon paragraph ‘6’ of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793, to arrive at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved and established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, it had passed the judgment of conviction.

The senior counsel for the appellants had submitted that the FIR was lodged belatedly on 22.08.2015 with respect to an incident which took place in the evening of August 20, 2015. The FIR at once alleged both kidnapping (implying that the complainant’s father was still alive) and being killed on the spot. Two days after the alleged incident, the FIR was registered both under Sections 304 and 302 read with 201 IPC. 

Responding to this submission, Justice Prasad observed: ''The same issue of delay in registering FIR came to be considered more recently in Hariprasad v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2024) 2 SCC 557. In the said case, there was a delay of over one year and three months in lodging of the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the settled legal position that the receipt and recording of the information report by the police is not a condition precedent to set into motion a criminal investigation as held in Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala reported in (1973) 3 SCC 114 and it was held that no doubt unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR may give rise to suspicion which puts the court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version.'' He also noted:''This Court is of the considered opinion that on the face of the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 who are trustworthy witnesses of the prosecution, the delay in registration of the FIR and sending the same to the jurisdictional court would not prove fatal to the prosecution.''

Justice Prasad relied upon paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Animireddy Venkata Ramana and Ors. vs.Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2008 SC 1603, to assert that Supreme Court's observations ''duly answers the plea of the defence that the FIR in this case would be hit by Section 162 CrPC.''  

With regard to submission of counsel for the appellants which drew on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165 to submit that in this case the sole testimony of PW-8 is not a cogent and reliable piece of evidence to base the conviction of the accused on his testimony, Justice Prasad observed:''We have found that the facts of the present case are quite different and distinct.'' 

As of part of the Division Bench, Justice Prasad observed: We find that the informant (PW-8) is a natural witness of this case and he has withstood the test of cross-examination so well that we find his testimony cogent and reliable. The law is well settled that the testimony of a single witness may be found sufficient to prove the prosecution case. We would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614." He referred to para ‘10’ of the  judgment in this regard. He also referred to Supreme Court's decision in Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2003) 2 SCC 401, wherein, it  reiterated that one credible witness would outweigh the testimony of number of other witnesses of indifferent character. 

Justice Prasad was impressed with these submissions of counsel for the appellants who contended that the prosecution witnesses were related witnesses, therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon their evidences. The submission was that Badgaon is a very large village with panchayat functionaries and a formal post of Chaukidar was there but no independent witness came to support the prosecution case. Justice Prsad drew on Supreme Court's decision in Mallanna vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 8 SCC 523, wherein, it held that merely because witnesses are related and interested and not injured, their evidences cannot be discarded if they are natural witnesses and their testimonies are otherwise found to be credible, especially when they support the prosecution case in material particulars. Justice Prasad observed: ''In this case, we cannot lose sight of the fact that one of the accused in this case was a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Agiaon Constitutency and in the present day circumstances where normal people are afraid of becoming a witness in a criminal case, absence of an independent witness cannot be taken as fatal to the prosecution.'' 

The senior counsel for the appellants submitted that since the alleged murder and hiding the body is central to the prosecution case, the body that was recovered by police eight days later and in some other area, must have first been shown to belong to the complainant’s father but there was no effort to match the body with the complainant’s father. It was submitted that there was enough indicators to prove that it was some other totally unconnected body that was randomly recovered and sought to be joined to this case. To strengthen his submission, Senior Counsel submitted that the postmortem report indicated that the body belongs to a man in age younger (40-45 years) while the postmortem report (Exhibit ‘1’) stated that son claims his father was around 55 years. The trial court had relied upon the family’s identification without giving the reasons and it recorded that the medical evidences corroborates the ocular version. It was submitted that the postmortem’s age estimate contradicted the family’s 55 year claim and decomposition made visual identification inherently unsafe. It was also submitted that the postmortem report did not indicate any injuries matching the one described in the prosecution case. If dozens of people had assaulted the deceased with rod, stones and bricks, surely the body would indicate multiple fractures and severe injuries. The cause of death with respect to the recovered body is shown as strangulation which does not match the allegations. The time of death was stated to be between 23rd and 25th August, 2015 which does not match the facts of the present case. 

The senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the dead body was displaying heightened stage of putrefaction and decomposition. It was bloated and discoloured and the prosecution witnesses did not identify it explicitly and categorically. The prosecution witnesses claim to have recognized him through vague criteria like a mark on stomach, hair cut and hair dye. It was submitted that in such advanced putrefaction with bloating, skin slippage/discolouration, any small scar would be distorted/obscured. It was pointed out that the samples of skin, nails and hair were collected from the complainant and his brothers and from the dead body and sent for the DNA testing, however, the results were never submission is that since the FSL report was never produced to confirm the identity. His submission is that since the FSL report was never produced, an adverse inference should be drawn for withholding the best (‘DNA’) evidence. 

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Kaleeswaran vs. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town East Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 17 SCC 699, senior counsel submitted that in the said case it was held that since the superimposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like the DNA report or the postmortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the superimposition test. In the present case, even a superimposition test was not done. The postmortem report indicated every sign of it being a third person’s body not matching in age, or other descriptions. 

On the use of superimposition technique in Indian investigation, senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pattu Rajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 4 SCC 771. 

The senior counsel submitted that in the present case, PW-1 states that there were 100-150 people in the group. He also said that he recognized people from his own village but did not recognize outsiders. PW-3 stated that there were 200 people present on the spot. The Investigating Officer has admitted that ‘Badgaon’ is a very large village with Panchayat functionaries and a formal post of Chaukidar, however, none has been examined. Thus, there was not a single independent witness amongst the prosecution witnesses. No test identification parade was held to identify the outsiders to the village who were not known to the prosecution witnesses. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Masalti and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30 (paragraph ‘16’) and in BusiKoteswara Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 12 SCC 711 (paragraphs ‘13’ and ‘15’) to submit that in a case that pertains to an offence involving a large number of offenders, the Court has held that conviction may be sustained only if it was supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent kind of the incident. In Golbar Hussain and Others vs. State of Assam and Another reported in (2015) 11 SCC 242 (paragraphs ‘10’ and ‘11’), it has been held that when two witnesses contradict each other then unless one of their statements is otherwise corroborated by an independent witness, the accused will have to be granted the benefit of doubt. 

With regard to the reference of the senior counsel to the decision of the Supreme Court in Masalti case, Justice Prasad observed: ''Supreme Court has, in fact, reiterated the settled legal position that quality of evidence matters and not the number of witnesses who give such evidence. It, however, says “But sometimes it is useful to adopt a test like the one which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present case.” He added: "In our considered opinion, Masalti (supra) case would not help the appellants in the present case.'' 

The counsel for the appellant Manoj Manzil had argued that the testimonies with regard to the role of the appellants were not at all reliable and were conflicting. 

Responding this submission, Justice Prasad observed that  PW-8 who was accompanying his father at the time of occurrence had specifically stated that Manoj had caught hold of his father and slammed him down on the Kharanja Road and started assaulting him by lathi. In his cross-examination on behalf of Manoj Manjil, there is no suggestion that Manoj Manjil was not present among the persons who had come running to the father of the informant and had assaulted him. PW-1 also stated that Manoj Manjil had slammed down his father on the Kharanja Road. He stated that he had seen him with others assaulting his father. Similarly, PWs-2, 3 and 4 all attributed specific role to Manoj Manjil. 

Justice Prasad relied on Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh reported in (1974) 3 SCC 277, wherein, it held that a criminal trial concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of crime with which he is charged. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. He quoted para 23 of the judgment in Jagir Singh's case. It reads: “23. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.” Justice Prasad has underlined that he had to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. 

Relying on this principle, Justice Prasad observed: ''we have found that on the date of occurrence, there was a meeting of Malle party in the Badgaon village in which Manoj Manjil who was local MLA from Agiaon Constituency was present. The statements were being made in the sabha against a caste. It has come in the statement of the prosecution witnesses that one Satish Yadav was killed and in the revenge of said occurrence, the accused persons caught hold of Jai Prakash Singh, assaulted him and took him away who could not be traced despite hectic search made by police immediately after receipt of the information as recorded hereinabove. The defence has not either by the pattern of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing any evidence tried to create any dent on the prosecution version that Manoj Manzil and other accused persons named by the prosecution had caught hold of the father of PW-8 and had assaulted him whereafter he was abducted. We, therefore, take a view that even this argument of learned counsel for the appellant Manoj Manzil would not impress this Court.''

The senior counsel had submitted that the testimonies with regard to the role of the appellants were not at all reliable and were conflicting. PW-1 stated only that the accused appellants were wrestling the complainant’s father on the ground. PW-2 only makes very broad based and general allegation saying that the appellants were part of a large crowd that was taking the complainant’s father. No specific role was attributed to the appellant Manoj Manjil who was admittedly part of a large group of persons. PW-3 mentioned that the accused collectively gave almost a hundred lathi blows to his father causing his head to split, however, the recovered body exhibited no such signs. PW-3 did not name the people who caused this particular injury. PW-4 alleged that the appellant was wrestling and shoving and also using rods and stones in the presence of many other people. PW-8 alleged wrestling on the ground and hitting with a rod while several other people were assaulting him with stones and bricks even if believed, none of those matches to any form of assault that may result in strangulation or chocking. On these grounds, submissions were made to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and acquit the appellants.

The counsel for the appellant made submissions that the findings of the trial court with regard to the identity of the dead body were completely erroneous. With regard to senior counsel's submission drawing on Supreme Court's decision in S. Kaleeswaran vs. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town East Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 17 SCC 699, in this case it was held that the superimposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like the DNA report or the postmortem report, Justice Prasad observed that on going through the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Kaleeswaran, the High Court noticed that in that case admittedly, the entire prosecution case rested on the circumstantial evidence. In that case the Supreme Court was appreciating the evidences keeping in view the well-settled principles known as five golden principles laid down by the Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. The Supreme Court had outlined the conditions which were required to be fulfilled, before a case based on circumstantial evidence against an accused can be said to be fully established. The case was based on theory of last seen together. The dead body or the skeleton remains of dead body was found after almost five months from the date of incident. The prosecution case was that the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, therefore, in that context, the Supreme Court observed inter alia “….. It is true that in the case based on circumstantial evidence, if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the conviction could be recorded even if the corpus is not found, but when as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else.”

Justice Prasad observed: ''On a bare reading of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be evident that the prosecution case in the present case is completely different and distinct. At first instance, it is not based on circumstantial evidence. The dead body has not been recovered from the place shown by an accused. In this case, the dead body has been found within seven days of the occurrence and the accusation against the appellants is based on direct evidence. The prosecution witnesses have attributed the assault and abduction of Jai Prakash Singh to the appellants. It is evident from the judgment in S. Kaleeswaran (supra) that even in a case based on circumstantial evidence, if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the conviction should be recorded even if the corpus is not found. That principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaleeswaran (supra) only helps the prosecution in this case.'' 

As to senior counsel's reliance upon para 22 and 23 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pattu Rajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 4 SCC 771, Justice Prasad responded:''52. We are afraid that the judgment in the case of Pattu Rajan does not help the appellants from any point of view. In the present case, a bare perusal of the written information submitted by the informant (PW-8) would show that there is a specific allegation of assault and thereby causing death of Jay Prakash Singh at the place of occurrence and thereafter taking away of his dead body by the appellants. In such circumstance, police has rightly investigated the case taking the offence under Sections 364 and 302 IPC committed in course of the same transaction. The judgment in the case of Pattu Rajan (supra) would rather help the prosecution in answering the plea of the defence that non-production of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.'' 

He quoted para 49 to 52 of the decision in Pattu Rajan's case and drawing on the observations of the Supreme Court, Justice Prasad concluded: ''It is evident on bare reading of the aforesaid paragraphs that absence of DNA evidence would not lead to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution in the present case on the face of the other cogent and reliable evidence on the record.'' 

The submissions made on behalf of the appellants could not convince the High Court's Division Bench about the innocence Manoj Manzil and others. Now only Supreme Court can consider the appeal of Manoj Mazil and other appellants. 

The ripple created by the judgment is likely/unlikely to have some electoral impact in the Bihar's assembly election in Bhojpur/Shahabad region.       

Also read: Patna High Court sets aside judgement by Vinay Prakash Tiwary, the trial court judge in Satyanarayan Sinha murder case, reverses acquittal of Rit Lal Yadav

Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh in a case of murder, criminal conspiracy, disappearance of evidence case

In Vishal Kumar @ Vishal Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria passed a 4-page order dated August 26, 2025, wherein, it set aside the impugned order dated February 28, 2025 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court and granted anticipatory bail in a murder case. 

The appellant who has been arraigned as accused in connection with FIR No.437/2023 dated October 19, 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, (IPC) is seeking anticipatory bail. The gist of the prosecution case is that on October 1, 2022 the complainant’s five year old son who was playing in front of the house had been killed by accused person(s) and in the mele the complainant and his wife were also injured. Though the incident occurred on October 1. 2022, the complaint came to be lodged before the jurisdictional court on August 31, 2023 which resulted in registration of the FIR on October 19, 2023. It was not in dispute that there was no post-mortem carried out. As to the complicity of the appellant in the death of the complainant’s son, was an issue which was required to be examined after the prosecution witnesses were examined, namely, as to the actual role played by the appellant, if any.

Section 201 of IPC reads:"Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both." 

Section 120B of IPC reads: "Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 1[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]" 

The Supreme Court observed:"....any examination of the material gathered during the course of investigation by evaluating the same by this court at this stage, would affect the trial. Hence, we do not propose to go into those aspects at this stage and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.  6. Hence, the appeal stands allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 and appellant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail." 

In Vishal Kumar @ Vishal Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Singh had passed an order dated February 28, 2025, which reads: "Considering the nature of accusation and other circumstances of the case , prayer for pre – arrest bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected." The petitioner had apprehended his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case is that on the alleged date and time occurrence, while the informant and her five years old son were playing in front of their house, in the meanwhile, all the accused persons including the petitioner came there and co-accused Priyanshu Kumar and the petitioner assaulted son of informant as a result of which he died. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was innocent and had committed no offence. 

On August 18, 2023 one Kunkun Singh, Murari Singh and Niwas Singh came to the house of petitioner and made fire upon Vishal Kumar, the petitioner and his wife due to which they sustained fire arm injury and were taken to Patna medical College Hospital for treatment and thereafter, on August 19, 2023, Khaira PS case of 2023 was lodged by the petitioner against accused persons of the case in which one Mithilesh Singh alias Kunkum Singh was arrested and only in retaliation wife of Mithilesh Singh alias Kunkun Singh lodged the case against petitioner. The counsel for the State and the informant opposed the bail petition and submitted that petitioner was named in the F.I.R., with specific accusation that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons assaulted son of informant as a result of which he died.

Supreme Court upholds order by Justice Soni Shrivastava refusing grant of anticipatory bail

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 2-page long order dated August 25, 2025 in the case related to a scam in the University and the alleged financial defraud by all the petitioners. . It reads:”It is also a fact that the special leave petitions preferred by Mr. Jitendra Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.7000/2025 @ D.No.22186/2025), Mr. Manoj Gupta(SLP (Crl.) No. 7168/2025 @ D.No. 24324/2025), Dr. Ashok Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.8245/2025 @ D.No.27267/2025) and Mr. Sunil Agarwal(SLP (Crl.) No.8215/2025 @ D.No.27269 of 2025) asking pre-arrest bail have been rejected by this Court. 2) Considering all these aspects, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand rejected….3) However, the officers are at liberty to take recourse as permissible.” The special leave to appeal (Criminal) arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated April 17, 2025 in Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar passed by the Patna High Court. 

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar (2025), in her 7-page long order dated April 17, 2025, Justice Soni Srivastava of Patna High Court had concluded:”…it appears that there is strong allegation of conspiracy as against the present petitioner showing his involvement and also considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been denied the anticipatory bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 74836 of 2024, Vide order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32493 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 22548 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 33718 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 31143 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32191 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32719 of 2024 and Cr. Misc. No. 83228 of 2024 and also considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (Supra), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is hereby, rejected. 12. This application stands dismissed.” 

Justice Srivastava referred to Supreme Court’s paragraphs 23-26 of the decision in Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (CRL). No.3247 of 2025) reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291. It reads:  “23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of the public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the Courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature of aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, the Court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant- accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the un-savoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long". In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell. because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order; then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.” 

The petitioner had approached the Court apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 48 of 2021 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021 registered under sections 109, 120B, 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (b) r/w 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, while working as the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya hatched a criminal conspiracy with the assistance of Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University, the Registrar, Patliputra University private firms namely, Ms Poorva Graphics & M/s XLICT software Pvt. Ltd and other unknown accused persons and fraudulently and dishonestly cheated the Government to the extent of Rs. 20 crores during the year 2019-21 in the matter of purchase of various items related to the use of University during examination and otherwise, it is alleged that ignoring the advice of the competent officer, the accused persons raised bill to the extent of Rs. 20 crores from Magadh University and Veer Kunwar Singh University without assessing the requirement and violating the tender procedure and justification of rates etc. The Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University and Registrar Patliputra University cleared all the fraudulent bills of the private firms. The petitioner, who was officiating as the Finance Officer of Patliputra University, was deputed to Magadh University as Finance Officer by the order of the Chancellor/Governor of Bihar where he served in the capacity of Finance Officer from April 15, 2021 to July 4, 2021. The allegation against the petitioner was that he connived with the main accused, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then Vice Chancellor and other accused persons to clear the fraudulent bills of accused nos. 3 and 4. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the High Court that from bare perusal of the First Information Report, it can be inferred at the outset that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during the investigation and the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 20.03.2023. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was further submitted that being the Finance Officer, the petitioner is bound to act in accordance with the orders of the Vice Chancellor. Section 16 of the Act also reflects that the Finance Officer has no role in making any financial decisions for the University, rather he holds a formal role as a co-signatory upon the payment of cheques. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had lodged complaints with secretary, Governor Secretariat about the mishaps of the University long before the initiation of the present case. Annexure-4 to the present application has been brought on record to substantiate the said submission. 

The Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance (SVU) opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the SVU. It has been stated in paragraphs-10, 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was in connivance with the prime accused and other accused persons. There was a fraud in supply made by the accused nos. 2 and 3 and knowing these facts the Examination Controller and the petitioner signed the cheques. Hence, the petitioner is a part of criminal conspiracy due to which huge amount of Government of Bihar was misappropriated. The counsel for the Special P.P. for the SVU hence, submits that a huge loss has been caused to the state exchequer and the petitioner is part of the said conspiracy. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that the anticipatory bail application of several similarly situated accused persons have already been rejected by the High Court. In support of their contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Santosh So Dwarkadas Fafat vs. State of Maharastra (2017) 9 SCC 714, Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941,  Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. Reported as (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299. 

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh

In Rahul Kumar@ Rikesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhyan passed a 3-page long order dated July 24, 2025, wherein it set aside the 3-page long order dated September 12, 2024 by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of Patna High Court who had rejected the bail prayer.

The appellant's counsel contended that this was a case based on circumstantial evidence. Even the cause of death as per the autopsy report was not clear. He pointed out that it has been admitted that the body was found in river water, therefore, possibility of death on account of drowning cannot be ruled out given the fact that the autopsy report showed that lungs were found filled with water. It was submitted that the appellant has suffered incarceration of over a period exceeding one year and there was no likelihood that the appellant would misuse the liberty of bail during the course of trial. The counsel for the State could not dispute that as per the autopsy report, the cause of death is not ascertainable. 

Supreme Court's order reads:"6. Having regard to the facts of the case as also the contents of the autopsy report brought on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for release on bail during pendency of the trial on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order rejecting the bail prayer is set aside." It ordered that the appellant be released on bail.

Patna High Court had heard an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail vide order dated April 23, 2024 and modification order dated June 12, 2024 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in Serial Case No. 317 of 2023, Special Case No. 392 of 2023 which arose out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2023 dated August 23, 2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 364, 365, 506, 302, 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(r)(s) / 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

As per the prosecution case, It is alleged that the informant's grandson along with one Ganesh Kumar went to take bath in the Ganga River and she made suspicion that the appellant and the co-accused persons kidnapped her grandson with intent to kill and Pawan Kumar escaped.

The counsel for the appellant had submitted before the High Court that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He submitted that the caste name was not disclosed by anyone at the time of the alleged occurrence. He also submitted that no specific caste name was called by the appellant hence no case was made out under section of the SC/ST Act. There is nothing except suspicion. It was also alleged that the said occurrence took place at 7:30 AM on 23.08.2023 and the postmortem of deceased commenced on March 24, 2023 at 8:00 PM in which no ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The dead body was decomposed and rigor mortis was absent which indicated that the death of the deceased had taken place much before the alleged time of occurrence. The appellant had three criminal antecedents. The appellant was in custody since February 16, 2024.  The counsel for the informant and the Special Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant. It was stated that the eyewitness Pawan Kumar had made specific allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It was further stated that the accused persons were pressurizing the deceased to withdraw the case bearing Salimpur P.S. Case No. 166 of 2023 dated July 25, 2023 which was filed by the deceased against the co-accused persons and as the deceased did not compromise, he was brutally assaulted and thrown in the river.

In Rahul Kumar@ Rikesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2024), Justice Chandra Prakash Singh's order concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and heinous nature of allegation against the appellant, I am not inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 and modification order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act, Patna in Serial Case No. 317 of 2023, Spl. Case No. 392 of 2023 arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2023 and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected." The respondent no. 2 was Bachchi Devi.  

It is noteworthy that although Justice Singh's order rejecting bail has been set aside, the Supreme Court has recorded in its order that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.  

Supreme Court quashes Patna High Court's decision and FIR, stops criminal proceedings against HDFC Bank

In HDFC Bank vs. The State of Bihar, Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated June 8, 2022 passed by Justice Partha Sarthy, the Single Bench of Patna High Court. The Supreme Court's judgement dated October 22, 2024 reads: "We are of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank would cause undue hardship to the appellant-bank." Besides the State of Bihar, there were four respondents namely, DGP, Patna, SP, Patna, the Officer In Charge and Priyanka Sharma, Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV). 

The Court also quashed and set aside the First Information Report being Case No. 549 of 2021 registered at Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna on November 22, 2021, against certain officials of the appellant-bank working at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Notably, a written complaint to the SHO, Gandhi Maidan Police Station seeking to register an FIR against Sunita Khemka and the concerned bank officials on the ground that the order dated October 5, 2021 had been violated owing to the unlawful operation of the locker of Sunita Khemka. 

On October 5, 2021, an order under Section 132(3) of the  Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961 was served upon the Branch Manager of the appellant-bank at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna by the concerned Authorized Officer, thereby directing the said branch of the appellant-bank to stop the operation of any bank lockers, bank accounts and fixed deposits standing in the names of Sunil Khemka (HUF), Sunita Khemka and Shivani Khemka, among several other individuals and entities, with immediate effect. It was further clarified that contravention of the order would render the Branch Manager liable under Section 275A of the IT Act and the same would result in penal action. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the appellant-bank stopped the operation of the bank accounts, bank lockers and fixed deposits of the individuals/entities mentioned in the order. Further, on 7th October,2021, the appellant-bank blocked the bank accounts of the income-tax assesses named in the order and also sealed the bank locker bearing No. 462 belonging to Smt. Sunita Khemka.

Later, on November 1, 2021, Priyanka Sharma, Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV), the respondent No. 5 had issued an order to the Branch Manager of the appellant-bank directing the appellant-bank to revoke the restraint put on the bank accounts of Sunita Khemka and three other persons, in view of the restraining order dated October 5, 2021 passed under Section 132(3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the said persons, including Sunita Khemka, were to be allowed to operate their bank accounts. The said order was received by the concerned Branch Manager of the appellant-bank on November 8, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. However, on November 2, 2021 at 11:24 a.m., an email was sent to the Branch Manager which contained the same order. Thereafter, on November 9, 2021, the concerned branch of the appellant-bank allowed Sunita Khemka to operate her bank locker bearing No. 462 and proper entries recording the operation of the locker were made in the bank’s records. After that on November 20, 2021, Respondent No. 5 conducted a search and seizure operation at the aforementioned bank locker in the concerned branch of the appellant-bank wherein it was found that Sunita Khemka had operated her bank locker with the assistance of the concerned officers of the appellant-bank. This was validated by the entry made in the bank’s records and the CCTV footage of the bank. 

As a result, the concerned officials of the aforementioned branch of the appellant-bank were found to have breached the restraining order dated October 5, 2021. On November 20, 2021, Respondent No. 5 issued summons under Section 131(1A) of the IT Act to Abha Sinha-Branch Manager, Abhishek Kumar-Branch Operation Manager and Deepak Kumar-Teller Authoriser being the concerned officials of the appellant-bank. These officials attended the office of Respondent No. 5 and their statements were recorded wherein Abha Sinha and Abhishek Kumar stated that there had been an inadvertent error on the part of the bank officials and they had misinterpreted the order dated November 1, 2021. Since the said order pertained to the bank accounts of the concerned individuals including Sunita Khemka, the bank officials had misread the order to understand /assume that the revocation of the restraint extended to the bank lockers as well. Having misunderstood the order, the bank officials under a bona fide assumption that bank locker had been released as well, allowed Sunita Khemka to operate the same. The statement of Sunita Khemka was also recorded wherein she stated that her accountant Surendra Prasad, after speaking with Deepak Kumar, had informed her that the restraint on the aforementioned bank locker had been revoked and she could operate the said locker. This was specifically denied by Deepak Kumar in his statement. Dissatisfied with the said explanations, Respondent No. 5 submitted a written complaint to the SHO, Gandhi Maidan Police Station seeking to register an FIR against Sunita Khemka and the concerned bank officials on the ground that the order dated October 5, 2021 had been violated owing to the unlawful operation of the aforementioned locker. 

On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered against Sunita Khemka and the staff of the appellant-bank on November 22, 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 207, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the IPC. HDFC bank preferred a Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case to invoke the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the quashing of the FIR. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition finding it to be devoid of merit.

The Supreme Court's judgement reads:"In the present case, the FIR does not show that the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception. For bringing out the offence under the ambit of Section 420 IPC, the FIR must disclose the following ingredients: (a) That the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception; (b) That the said inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; and (c) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement."

It observed: "The appellant-bank is a juristic person and as such, a question of mens rea does not arise. However, even reading the FIR and the complaint at their face value, there is nothing to show that the appellant-bank or its staff members had dishonestly induced someone deceived to deliver any property to any person, and that the mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. As such, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC would not be available."

With regard to the provisions of Section 409 of IPC, the following ingredients will have to be made out:
(a) That there has been any entrustment with the property, or with any dominion over property on a person in the capacity of a public servant or banker, etc.; (b) That the said person commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property.

For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property.

The Court noted that "In the present case, there is not even an allegation of entrustment of the property which the appellant-bank has misappropriated or converted for its own use to the detriment of the respondent No.5. As such, the provisions of Section 406 and 409 IPC would also not be applicable." It also noted that "since there was no entrustment of any property with the appellant-bank, the ingredients of Section 462 IPC are also not applicable."

The Court observed that "since the offences under Section 206, 217 and 201 of the IPC requires mens rea, the ingredients of the said Sections also would not be available against the appellant-bank. The FIR/complaint also does not show that the appellant-bank and its officers acted with any common intention or intentionally cooperated in the commission of any alleged offences. As such, the provisions of section 34, 37 and 120B of the IPC would also not be applicable."

The Court relied on the observations made in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992). It observed: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

In Bhajan Lal's case, the Supreme Court said: "We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 

Notably, High Court too had referred to the decision in the Bhajan Lal case. Drawing on Court's decision in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [(1985)2 SCC 370], the High Court had noted that while exercising its power to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It had also relied on the decision in the case of State of Kerala v O.C. Kuttan [(1999)2 SCC 251], wherein the Supreme Court held that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings was to be exercised very sparingly and the Court was not to embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. It recalled the judgment in Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175] wherein the Supreme Court has held that the first information report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. What was significant was that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. It also took note of in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others (judgment dated 13.4.2021 in Criminal Appeal no. 330 of 2021) wherein the Supreme Court held that it cannot thwart an investigation into a cognizable offences which is the statutory right and duty of the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception which is exercised sparingly with circumspection.

In the HDFC case, unlike the High Court, the Supreme Court observed: "We find that the present case would squarely fall within categories (2) and (3) of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and others (supra)." It stopped continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank.