FIR lodged against Kamal Nayan Pandey, SHO, Murar, Buxar registered in compliance with order by Patna High Court in a case of police brutality

In Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Director General of Police, Bihar (2026), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court had passed a 5-page long order dated June 16, 2026, wherein, he concluded:" "5. Be as it is, as per the allegation, prima facie case of cognizable offence is clearly made out against Kamal Nayan Pandey, who was the then Officer in-Charge of Murar Police Station, Buxar, Ara. The Court, at this Stage, is required not to look into the veracity of the allegation but to see to it that as per the allegation, prima facie cognizable offence is made out, warranting registration of FIR against the accused, and it is needless to say that as per the allegation, there is clearly commission of serious cognizable offence by the accused. 6. Moreover, for prosecution of the accused, who happened to be a police officer, does not require even sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC/ 218 B.N.S.S. because such brutal act on the part of the police officer against a poor man is not a part of his official duty. 7. It is shocking and disturbing that the cry of the victim for lodging of FIR before the concerned police officers, including the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, went unheard by the officers despite their duty to do the needful to prosecute the accused, even if the accused happened to be an officer. It is trite to say that ours is a constitutional democracy based on rule of law. Howsoever high one may be, the law is above all. There is also equality before law and equal protection of law of everybody, howsoever poor he may be." 

Justice Kumar observed: "8. At this stage, referring the Petitioner to the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.PC/175(3) B.N.S.S. would be further injustice to the Petitioner. Moreover, as per the allegation, there is clear violation of fundamental right of the Petitioner as granted and guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution requiring immediate lodging of FIR, failing which, the people of the Country would lose faith not only in police but even in the Writ Court."

The High Court's order reads: "9. Hence, the Station House Officer, Murar Buxar is directed to lodge FIR against Kamal Nayan Pandey, the then Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar. 10. The Director General of Police, Bihar is directed to take compliance report from the Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar, Ara regarding lodging of the FIR and entrust the investigation to the Crime Investigation Department because this case is lodged against a police officer. 11. In case, the Petitioner is not satisfied by the investigation of the C.I.D. also, then he would be at liberty to file a further writ petition before this Court seeking appointment of C.B.I. to investigate into the matter, because this matter relates to protection of the fundamental right of the people and brutality committed by the police officer. If such conduct is not controlled and checked, the whole rule of law and constitutional protection of life and liberty of the citizen of the country would go to wind and the national police may become like one of Nazi Germany. 12. The present writ petition is allowed, accordingly. 13. The D.G.P., Bihar is also directed to send a compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court to be put up on record within thirty days." The 30-day period expired on July 16, 2026. In compliance with the High Court's order FIR No. 5793027260052 dated July 3, 2026 under Sections 115(2), 126 (2), 117(2),352,351 (2), 303 (2),3(5) of BNS, 2023 in a case of police brutality at 2 PM on July 4, 2024. Ram Ishwar Kumar has been appointed as the Investigator of the case. The complaint dated July 3, 2026 filed by Manish Kumar, the petitioner is as under:    

सेवा में,

थानाध्यक्ष
थाना मुरार
बक्सर
विषय - प्राथमिकी दर्ज करने के संबंध में |
महाशय, सविनय निवेदन इस प्रकार है कि मनीष कुमार पिता शिव शंकर यादव ग्राम एवं पोस्ट - गंगहर थाना- आरा मुफस्सिल जिला भोजपुर का निवासी हूँ। मैं दिनांक 04.07.24 को जो जमीन के कागजात लेकर ऑनलाइन करने अपने दोस्त के दुकान पर ग्राम चौगाई गया था तभी मैं दिन में 2:00 बजे के करीव दुकान से  शौच करने के लिए जा रहा था तब मुरार थाना जो जिला बक्सर में आता है वहां की पुलिस गाड़ी लेकर आई  जिसमें मुरार थाना जो जिला बक्सर में आता है वहां के पुलिस गाड़ी लेकर आई जिसमें मुरार थाना के तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय एवं अन्य सिपाही मौजूद थे उन्होंने मुझे बुलाया तो मैं उन लोगों को बुलाने पर गया जाने के बाद उनलोगों के द्वारा मुझसे पूछताछ किए जाने लगा हम जिस काम के लिए गए थे वही भी मैंने बताया फिर मुझे मेरा नाम पूछा गया जैसे कि मैं अपना नाम मनीष कुमार यादव बताया तो तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय कहने लगी है कि ये अहिर जाति का है और गालियां देने लगे मुझे बेरहमी से लाठी डंडे से उनके द्वारा बहुत मारा गया जिसमें मैं घायल हो गया | वह डंडे से मुझे मार कर मेरा पैर तोड़ दिया जिसमें मैं अधमरा सा हो गया तब मैंने अपने दोस्त के पास फोन करके बुलाया लेकिन उन लोगों ने मुझे मिलने नहीं दिया-तथा मुझे पुलिस के गाड़ी में बैठ कर वसंतपुर गांव में लेकर गए और ग्रामीण लोगों से पूछने लगे कि यह लड़का यही का है जब गांव वाले ने बताया कि यहां का नहीं है तब मुझे प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य केंद्र चौड़ाई में ले जाकर इलाज काराये वहां मैंने देखा कि तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय अपने हाथों को छिलकर दवा लगवाने लगे और अस्पताल में लिखवाने लगे कि यह भाग रहा था तब मैं डॉक्टर को बोला कि हम भाग नहीं रहे थे उनके बाद डॉक्टर ने बक्सर सदर अस्पताल में रेफर कर दिया गया रास्ते में एंबुलेंस को रोककर बातचीत आपस में करने लगे पुलिस द्वारा मुझे एंबुलेंस में बैठ कर सदर अस्पताल वक्सर ले जाया गया तथा वहां पर मेरा इलाज एवं पैर का एक्स-रे हुआ जिसकी प्रति इस आवेदन के साथ संलग्न है जहां डॉक्टर ने मुझसे पूछा कि यह कैसे हुआ तो मैंने बताया कि मुरार थाना के तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष ने मार कर मेरा पैर तोड़ दिया है तब तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष वहां मौजूद थे इस डॉक्टर एवं तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष के बीच मुझे लेकर बहस होने लगा तब सदर अस्पताल बक्सर के डॉक्टर द्वारा पटना रेफर किया गया तब मुझे तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय के द्वारा धमकाया किया अगर तुमने मुझ पर FIR किया तो तुम्हारे साथ-साथ तुम्हारे पिता का नौकरी खत्म कर दूंगा मेरे पिता जो आरा मुफ्फसिल थथाना में चौकीदार के पद पर कार्यरत है तथा पुलिस मुझे अस्पताल में ही छोड़ कर वहां से भाग गए किंतु मैं पुलिस कि डर से पटना नहीं जा पाया क्योंकि पुलिस सुलह कराने के लिए मेरा पीछा कर रहा था किसी तरह मैंने अपने निजी शहर आरा में ही डॉक्टर से अपना इलाज करवाए साथ में ही मेरा मोबाइल पर एवं पर्स में रखे कुछ कागजात एवं छ: हजार रुपया अभी तत्कालीन थानाध्यक्ष कमलनयन पांडेय के पास हैं. अतः श्रीमान से प्रार्थना की उक्त तथ्यों को ध्यान में रखते हुए दोपियों पर एफआईआर दर्ज करने की कृपा करें. ताकि मुझे न्याय प्राप्त हो सके. आपका विश्वासी मनीष कुमार, पिता शिव शंकर यादव, ग्राम एवं पोस्ट - गंगहर, थाना-आरा मुफ्फसिल, जिला - भोजपुर (विहार), पिन कोड 802312

The other six respondents were: Home Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, 3. The District Magistrate, Ara, 4. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar, 5. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara, 6. The Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar and 7. The Station House Officer, Muffassil Police Station, Ara. 

The writ petition was preferred by Manish Kumar, the Petitioner seeking lodging of FIR against the Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar, pleading that despite the written report given by the Petitioner to the concerned Officer In-Charge, of the Police Station, and the Superintendent of Police, as well as the District Magistrate, FIR was not lodged by the concerned police station. As per the allegation, the Petitioner was brutally assaulted by the Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar breaking his both legs without any rhyme and reason, only on account of the Petitioner belonging to a particular caste. As per the written report submitted by the Petitioner to the concerned police officer, the Petitioner had gone to the stall of his friend situated in the village Chaugaya on 04.07.2024 for online uploading of title documents in regard to his land. At 2:00 PM. When the Petitioner was going to answer the call of nature, the vehicle of Murar police station came, wherein, the Station House Officer, Murar Police Station and other constables were present. The Station House Officer called him and enquired about him and when he came to know that he belongs to a particular caste, he started abusing him in filthy language and assaulting him with his danda breaking his both legs. 

The High Court has recorded that the X-Ray report of the broken legs of the Petitioner was annexed with this writ petition, which clearly showed that the Petitioner suffered at the brutal hands of the accused, who happened to be a police officer, who is supposed to be a protector of the life and liberty of a citizen. 

The High Court has recorded: "4. Counter affidavit on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Buxar has been filed, as per which, the breaking of legs of the Petitioenr is admitted. The defense put forward by the police is that the police has not beaten the Petitioner. The Petitioner had in fact, slipped on account of rainy weather resulting into breaking of his legs. However, the breaking of the legs of the Petitioner, as is visible in the X-Ray Report, does not persuade this Court to accept the explanation given by the police, nor can one believe that a poor man who does not gather courage to lodge FIR even against his co-citizen can dare to lodge false report against a police officer."

Supreme Court reverses order by Justice Jitendra Kumar in a case from Guagaon, Kachna, Katihar, grants regular bail

In Chulka @ Aslam vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli has passed a 3-page long order dated August 31, 2026, wherein, it reversed the 3-page long order dated January 21 2026 by Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court. The petitioner calls in question the correctness of the order by the High Court. By the said order, the petitioner was denied the benefit of bail in connection with FIR/Case No.41/2025. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was a case where there is a cross case also. The State in its counter affidavit did not dispute the cross case, which has also resulted in chargesheet and only cognizance was awaited. The petitioner has already undergone about one year imprisonment and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. Supreme Court's order reads: "6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court in connection with the aforesaid FIR for the offence mentioned hereinabove." The Special Leave Petition was disposed of.  

The High Court had heard the case along with the  case of Md. Haider vs. The State of Bihar (2026).  As per allegation, nine accused persons including the petitioners came over the land of the informant armed with lathi, danda and iron rod and started beating the father of the informant, who subsequently died. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they have beaten the victim by iron rod, resulting into the serious injury into the head which resulted into his death. The counsel for the petitioners had submitted before the High Court that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. It was also submitted that as per the allegation, both the petitioners were assaulted the deceased with iron rod, but as per the post-mortem report, there is only one lacerated wound on the occipital region of the deceased and one swelling on the shoulder and bruise on thigh which could not be caused by assault by iron rod. He also submitted that not only charge-sheet was submitted, but also charge was framed in this case.It was also submitted that the petitioner No. 1/Md. Haider and petitioner No. 2/Chulka @ Aslam was languishing in jail since August 25, 2025 and July 30, 2025, respectively. It was also stated that the petitioners had no criminal antecedent. APP for the State had opposed the prayer of the petitioners for bail. He submitted that
there is direct allegation of assault by the petitioners by iron rod which resulted into the death of the deceased and hence, they do not deserve the privilege of regular bail. 

Justice Kumar had concluded:"9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the direct allegation of causing injury on the head which resulted into the death of the victim, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail and accordingly, it is rejected. 10. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a year, failing which the petitioners have liberty to renew their prayer for regular bail."

BCI Ki Garima Bachao Rashtriya Sangharsh Samiti formed, legitimacy of Bihar State Bar Council Election-2023 is in question before "Tribunal/Committee" of BCI

Bihar State Bar Council does not have duly elected members, the members from the State Bar Councils are elected for a period of five years. One State Bar Council elects one of its members for Bar Council of India. The Council elects its own Chairman and Vice-Chairman for a period of two years. If Bihar State Bar Council has total 47,528 voters, how did  voting of 56,350 voters took place? 

After the initiative of Allahabad and Bombay bar associations, on August 20, 2026, a meeting was held in the evening hours at Shatabdi Bhawan, Advocates Association, Patna High Court to launch BCI Ki Garima Bachao Rashtriya Sangharsh Samiti (BCIGBRSS) with S. Tripathi, member, Bar Council of India (BCI) and D. N. P. Yadav, former Vice-President, Bihar State Bar Council as it's conveners. (BCIGBRSS)'s committees are being formed in all the states. Journalists of all the newspapers who cover courts in Patna boycotted the coverage of the BCIGBRSS's program to express of solidarity with BCI's chairman who is from Bihar.  The coordination committee of the three associations of advocates of Patna High Court also expressed solidarity with the Bihari chairman of BCI. It issued a joint statement to communicate to the organiser of the meeting that the premises of the Shatabdi Bhawan cannot be used without prior application and permission. But they could not persuade the national media to demonstrate similar solidarity.  

Disregarding the joint statement of coordination committee of the three associations of advocates, BCIGBRSS's program was conducted from 4 PM till late evening hours. It was followed by a Masal Julus, torchlight procession. Senior advocate B. Chaudhary has been made the convener of Bihar unit of BCIGBRSS and R. S. Rai has been made its secretary. Advocates believe that the BCI should respect the interests of advocates and their freedom of expression instead of making arbitrary decisions. BCI should come to the defence of advocates whenever they face assault on their rights.  

 

BCIGBRSS, the newly formed organization of lawyers and jurists has been formed in the backdrop of protests against Chairman, BCI. The main objective of this protest committee is to protect the reputation, transparency, and democratic rights of lawyers of the BCI. Besides BCI member from Uttar Pradesh, Advocate S. Tripathi, BCI member M. K. Narendran, from Kerala, called for chairman's resignation. The latter made this demand directly before the General Council. Senior Advocate S. Reddy, BCI Co-Chairman has also sought BCI's chairman's resignation who is BCI's chairman for more than 14 years.  

 

The tenure of the BCI Chairman and Vice-Chairman is limited to two years under Rule 12(2). But a Gazette notification dated April 21, 2025 provided for a five-year tenure from April 17, 2025 to April 16, 2030. This has been challenged the Supreme Court. Notably, the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act is only a transitional provision and cannot authorise indefinite continuation of an elected BCI member. 

BCI chairman is chairman of BCI only because he was supposedly elected in Bihar State Bar Council Election-2023. 

One member is elected by each State Bar Council subsequent to the election of the State Bar Council from its existing members to represent them on the BCI. BCI consists of the Attorney-General of India, as ex-officio member; the Solicitor-General of India, ex -officio member, one member elected by each of the 24 State Bar Councils from amongst its members.

By now it is clear among the aggrieved advocates of Bihar that the a large number of advocates were not allowed to be included in the advocates voter list when the Bihar State Bar Council Election-2023 was conducted in an unfair manner. Its result was challenged in the Patna High Court which asked him to avail alternative remedy. Its adjudication is pending before the Election Tribunal of the BCI. 

\

The aggrieved advocates in Bihar include R.K. Singh, A. Kumar, P. K. Paswan, R.S. Roy, Alka Pandey, P.K. Singh, F.A. Khan and RJP Singh. They pursued a case the Patna High Court. Notably, ahead of the Bihar State Bar Council elections in December 2023, The Gazette of India published a 2-page long notification dated June 23, 2023 on June 26, 2023 under the subject "The house in order to improve the Standard of Legal Profession further feels the need to repeal Rule 32 and new Rule 32 of Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice".    

The new Rule 32 reads: "Rule 32. In case the term of elected members of any state Bar Council is likely to expire/expires due to delay in the process of identification of non-practicing advocates or verification of their certificates or delay in the preparation in the electoral roll for the election to the state Bar Councils due to the aforementioned reasons, the Bar Council of India may allow the elected members/and the office-bearers of the State Bar Council(s) to continue to function beyond their extended tenure under Section 8 of the Advocates’ Act, 1961 in order to complete the process of verification and in order to ensure that no non-practicing Advocate becomes a voter or a member of any state Bar Council. The State Bar Council(s) shall be required to complete the process of verification within a period of 18 months from the date of extension of their tenure by the Bar Council of India and shall complete the process of election within a period of 6 months therefrom. In case, of failure to complete the process of verification and the election within the said extended period as prescribed under this Rule, the Bar Council of India may dissolve the State Bar Council and shall proceed to constitute the Special Committee as provided under Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961." It also stipulates that "In case of any doubt or dispute as to the meaning, interpretation, execution of these Rules arises, the Bar Council of India shall be the final authority to settle such issues and its decision thereon shall be final."

Ratan Kumar Singh, the petitioner had filed in the High Court on February 16, 2024. It was registered on March 14, 2024. A. Kumar, P.K. Paswan, R.S. Roy, Alka Pandey, P.K. Singh, F.A. Khan and RJP Singh were the counsels for the petitioner. The five other respondents were Chairman, Bar Council of India, Bihar State Bar Council, through its Chairman, Returning Officer, the Bihar State Bar Council Election- 2023, Chief Observer, Bihar State Bar Council Election- 2023 and all the Members of Bihar State Bar Council. 

In Ratan Kumar Singh vs. The Chairman, Bihar State Election Commission & Ors. (2024), the 44th Chief Justice of Patna High Court, K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy dismissed the petition with liberty to explore the alternative remedy. The 4-page long judgement dated September 4, 2024 observed:"There is an alternate remedy provided in the Rules itself which the petitioner would be entitled to pursue, if he so desires. We find no reason to interfere with the Rules, specifically the amendments brought in or the elections; which have been concluded and results declared. The intervenor application is also filed, which, in the circumstance of the main matter being rejected does not survive." Ratan Kumar Singh, the petitioner, a practicing Advocate had filed the writ petition challenging the amendment made in 2023 to the Bar Council of Bihar Election Rules, 1968. He had also challenged the elections conducted in the year 2023 to the State Bar Council. The petitioner had submitted that the State of Bihar has less number of Voter-Advocates than more voters&Advocates voted in the election! 

The dispute regarding December 2023 election of the Bihar State Bar Council is pending before the Election Tribunal, one of the 15 committees of BCI. It is noteworthy that doctrine of ejusdem generis is relevant in this regard. The expression ejusdem generis-”of the same kind or nature”-signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same class are genus as preceding them. If a list or string or family of genus-describing terms are followed by wider or residuary or sweeping-up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words. But the preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class. It implies that the Election Tribunal, is essentially a committee of the BCI. 

Given the fact that at present, Bihar State Bar Council does not have duly elected members, it has removed the page mentioning the names of members of the Bar Council from 2025 issue of the Bihar Bar Council Journal, although the same was mentioned in the 2024 issues. 

Ahead of the Bihar State Bar Council election, three Central Election Tribunals/Committees were constituted on June 25, 2023 which published as the 18-page long notification dated October 9, 2023. The notification on the subject of "Regulations Governing the procedure for Election Petitions and applications Before the Central Election Tribunal/Committees of the Bar Council of India for resolution of issues relating to Election Disputes and other related matters of elections of the State Bar Councils and the Elections of Member Representatives to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Councils" was published in The Gazette of India. 

The BCI claimed that it constituted these three Central Election Committees/Tribunals for looking into and ensuring free and fair elections of different State Bar Councils in the light of directions/observations of Supreme Court in the year 2017. Every Tribunal as per Rules in this regard is headed by a former Chief Justice of High Court who is the Chairman and two other former Judges of High Courts as per the prescribed Rules. Past experience has shown that at many places many Advocates, who fill up the verification forms, still go missing from the list of voters, while several names are included without any verification forms. This apart, thousands of names/father names/enrolment numbers are wrongly mentioned in voter lists. Sometimes very ugly scenes are created at polling booths, at the time of election, and/or during the counting of votes. Even there are complaints of large-scale adoption of corrupt practices, distribution of money etc. for votes, and the use of posters/hoardings against the norms and Rules of Bar Council of India, which makes the candidature of a candidate liable to be cancelled/rejected. 

The BCI constituted these Committee(s) to adjudicate and decide such issues/disputes and also to decide/resolve all the objections, issues relating to elections right from any objection relating to electoral roll, acceptance/rejection of nomination, matters/complaints relating to adoption of corrupt practices or use of unfair means in the elections and/or to decide any sort of dispute/matter relating to election of Members of State Bar Council or BCI as the case may be. The day to day affairs of the State Bar Councils are to be looked after by the State Bar Councils only, but the orders or directions of these Tribunals/Committees will be binding on the State Bar Councils, Returning Officers and/or the Observers with regard to the process of election. The Tribunal has been empowered to address and dispose off interim matters, complaints, or other applications expeditiously in a summary manner, and it may do so without requiring a formal hearing with the involved parties, on the basis of documentary evidence before it. Besides this, the Tribunal is empowered to take cognizance of some matters suo motto and is vested with the ability to proactively initiate proceedings in certain instances, and may issue directives or orders as necessary to uphold the principles of fairness and transparency throughout the election and counting processes. 

The notification provides details about the composition of the Tribunals/Committees. 

 

Tribunal No. 1 comprises of Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Former Chief Justice, Patna High Court,  Justice Arun Tandon, former Judge, High Court of Allahabad and local former Judge to be nominated by the State Bar Council.  

 

Tribunal No. 2 comprises of Justice S. Mukherjee, Former Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka,  Justice Shivaji Pandey, former Judge, Patna High Court and  local former Judge to be nominated by the State Bar Council. 

 

Tribunal No. 3 comprises of Justice Rajendra Menon, Former Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi, Justice M. Sathyanarayanan, former Judge, Madras High Court and local former Judge to be nominated by the State Bar Council.   

The notification states that "An appeal may be filed within 60 days of the Tribunal's order being communicated to the party as provided under Section-38 of the Advocates Act, 1961." It provides a note which reads: "On earlier occasions, the petitions were filed against the order passed by the Central Election Tribunal (s) of B.C.I. only before the Hon’ble Supreme Court." It implies that High Court need not entertain appeal against Tribunal's order. It also states that "Where no specific provision is made in the procedure/rules the direction of the Tribunal may be sought".

Besides the three pre-existing Elections Tribunals/Committees constituted by BCI's chairman, in a related development, Supreme Court has constituted two Election Tribunals for adjudication of disputes arising out of the State Bar Council elections conducted under the Supreme Court-monitored process in Savita Devi @ Savita Dhanda & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2026) by its order dated May 18, 2026. The Election Tribunals constituted are as follows:

Election Tribunal 4

(i) Justice Deepak Gupta, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as Chairperson;
(ii) Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, former Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh High Court, as Member;
(iii) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Senior Advocate, as Member.

Election Tribunal 5

(i) Ms. Justice Hima Kohli, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as Chairperson;
(ii) Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, former Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court, as Member;
(iii) Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Senior Advocate, as Member.

The Tribunals constituted by the Supreme Court are pure Tribunals. But the three pre-existing Tribunals are "Tribunals/Committees".   

Supreme Court's order reads: "6. The aggrieved parties shall be at liberty to submit their respective claims before these Tribunal(s). We request the Tribunal(s) to decide all the issues, including interim directions, expeditiously. 7. All the State Bar Councils are directed to keep the records intact till the election disputes are finally decided by the Tribunal(s). 8. We may hasten to add that the petitioner’s (in W.P. (Civil) No. 614/2026) claim to have secured the highest votes amongst the unsuccessful candidates shall also be examined expeditiously." The petitioners 

In a significant development, the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 was passed by the the Rajya Sabha on August 11, 2026. It was approved by Lok Sabha on August 10, 2026. The new laws applies to 16 Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals, and Authorities which will be constituted by an independent National Tribunals Commission (NTC), dominated by the high-ranking members of the judiciary, replacing the central government, which was given the charge of making key appointments and services conditions according to the now repealed Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. In Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India [(2026) 2 SCC 1], the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and had directed the establishment of an independent National Tribunals Commission. But the Tribunals/Committees constituted by the BCI are not as independent as the ones envisaged under the new law and as per the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court's directions. 

Earlier, in Rajiva @ Rajiv Ranjan vs. Bihar State Bar Council, Justice Mohit Kumar Sah had passed a judgement dated July 31, 2023, wherein, he observed:"4. A decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been brought to my notice reported in the case of Anup Singh v. Bar Council of India, 2008 (2) BBCJ 126. The Court does not feel very happy after reading the same. Supreme Court has categorically held that at no occasion any election to a Bar Council is held in time. In most of the occasions the statutory life of the Bar Council has been extended by another six months by not holding an election well within time under the statute. This seems to be universal phenomenon across the country. This by itself may cast some doubt over the bona fide of the functioning of such body in matters of holding election within time. 5. It does not enthuse this Court to enter into such dispute between lawyers on the judicial side. A body consisting of eminent and seasoned counsels should be able to handle their affairs in conformity with the law but, since there seems to be a failure on their part which is statutory, the matter has travelled to the Court. The Court has no option but to resolve the issues in this regard."

The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 and the provisions for NTC reveal that BCI has constituted Tribuna;s/Commitees which are not independent because it is not inclined to allow the adjudication of dispute concerning Bihar State Bar Council Election-2023 by an independent Tribunal.   

These facts indicate that BCI is yet to adopt transparency and fairness in its functioning. It is to adopt the procedure of giving advance notice and agendas for meetings, recorded resolutions, publication of confirmed minutes, annual independently audited accounts and disclosure of material contracts involving the BCI and entities controlled, promoted or substantially financed by it. It is not clear as to whether BCI preserves electronic records, metadata, financial documents, contracts, recruitment records and communications relating to the BCI and the entities, unless these records are kept it will be difficult to fix accountability for its acts of omission and commission.

Also read:Bihar Bar Council Journal removes names of members of Bihar State Bar Council due to pending dispute before Central Election Tribunal

 

Make Audit Report of Bihar Bar Council, Bihar State Advocate Welfare Trust Committee online: Ram Jiban Prasad Singh, Candidate, Bihar State Bar Council

 

Supreme Court reverses Justice Sandeep Kumar's order, grants regular bail

In Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi passed an order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, it reversed the order dated April 20, 2026 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court, and granted regular bail. Even according to the prosecution there was no recovery of weapon from the appellant. 

Supreme Court's order reads: "Hence, we are of the considered view that the Appellant is entitled for bail, released on regular bail. The appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and appropriate by the jurisdictional Court."

The appellant was arraigned as an accused in a FIR of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He approached the Supreme Court for being enlarged on regular bail after his prayer made before the Trial Court and the High Court was negatived.

Supreme Court's order recorded that from the submissions of the advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the counter affidavit, it "emerged from the records that the allegation made in the complaint is the effect that appellant and co-accused had arrived at the informant’s house with firearms and lathis and it was alleged that appellant fired at the informant namely Binod Kumar causing a gunshot injury in left eye."

The counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the FIR is counter blast to the attack initiated by the informant side and in this regard, an FIR has been registered in FIR No.298 of 2025 by the appellant’s family alleging that the informant side had attacked with sticks and Binod Kumar had fired from country made pistol 6 to 7 times. Hence, the appellant sought for grant of regular bail. The advocates appearing for the parties, it emerged from the records that co-accused (had already been enlarged on bail). Although there was a specific allegation of firing against the appellant, the fact remains that, as per the averments made in the complaint that other co-accused also had carried the firearms.  

Earlier, in Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Kumar had passed a 2-page long order dated April 20, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has fired and injured the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed." The petitioner had approached the High Court for bail in connection with a Koilwar P.S. Case No. 297/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of Arms Act. 

Section 190: Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of a common object. 

Section 191(2): Rioting (using force or violence as an unlawful assembly of 5 or more people), punishable with up to 2 years imprisonment, a fine, or both. 

Section 191(3): Rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Section 126(2): Punishment for wrongful restraint (voluntarily obstructing someone to prevent them from moving in a direction they have a right to go).

Section 115(2): Voluntarily causing hurt (physical assault/marpit), punishable with up to 1 year imprisonment, a fine up to ₹10,000, or both.

Section 109: Punishment for abetment if the act abetted is committed and no explicit provision is made for its punishment.

Section 352: Punishment for assault or use of criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation.

Section 351(2) and (3): Criminal intimidation; sub-section (3) applies if the threat involves causing death, grievous hurt, or destruction of property, carrying a higher imprisonment term (up to 7 years)

Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act of 1959: sets the penalties for using arms and ammunition illegally. The severity of the punishment depends on whether standard or prohibited weapons are involved and if the illegal use results in loss of life.

As per the prosecution case, petitioner is a accused of firing upon the victim and causing fire arm injury in the thigh. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. It was also submitted that the injury was not on the vital part of the body of the victim. He submitted that he was no criminal antecedent in which he was on bail and he was in custody since December 29, 2025. The petitioner is the son of Baliram Rai, a resident of Chhotaka Chanda, Koilwar, Bhojpur. Now Supreme Court has granted bail to the petitioner. 

.

Supreme Court sets aside regular bail denial order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra in Devnath Rai murder case from Maner

In Dharmendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 5-page long order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"The order passed by the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. 8. The appellant shall be released on bail....".  The High Court's order was passed by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra. Supreme Court recorded:" 4. In this case, it appears that Vinay was an injured witness. His statement was not recorded at the time when the petition was filed and therefore, hearing on this petition was deferred to enable the Trial Court to record the statement of Vinay. 5. We have been informed that the statement of Vinay has been recorded in the trial and he has not identified the appellant as one of the participants in the incident....7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed." Notably, Shiv Kumari Devi, the informant, the wife of Late Devnath Rai, the victim who has allegedly been killed has not been made a party. She has not been able to rope any advocate to represent her in the Supreme Court. 

Earlier, in Dharmendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Mishra of Patna High Court had passed a 3-page long order dated July 7, 2025, wherein, he had refused to grant bail in a murder case. He had concluded:"6 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner as also taking into account the materials available in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously." The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with a P.S. Case of 2024 from Maner  instituted for the offences under Sections 140(1), 109, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Shiv Kumari Devi was not made a party in the case in the High Court. She was not able to rope any advocate to represent her in the High Court to represent her.

As per prosecution case, the accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is to have killed the Informant’s husband and disappeared his dead body. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and had committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The informant is not the eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. He also submitted that there was delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. that too without there being any plausible explanation for the same, which created doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case. It was submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from the conscious/physical possession of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no direct or specific allegation of any overt act against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner had two criminal antecedents and is languishing in judicial custody since December 3, 2024 without any rhymes or reason.The A.P.P. for the State had opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He had stated that the in this case, the injured Vinay Kumar was the eye-witness to the alleged occurrence who have supported the prosecution case. The petitioner, in his confessional statement, had also confessed his guilt. The petitioner  was named in the F.I.R. and, hence, he did not deserve bail. 

Shivkumari Devi is a permanent resident of Lodipur Jeevarakhand Tola, Vyapur Police Station, Maner, Patna. She informed the Maner Police that the incident occurred when her husband Devnath Rai and his friend Vinay Kumar, s/o Murari Rai of Lodipur had gone to Om Sai brick kiln to smoke at around 10 pm on August 5, 2024. At that time, a notorious criminal who is currently lodged in Beur Jail—1. Sagar Rai (son of Kashi Rai; resident of Lodipur Ganga Tola) and 2. Umashankar Yadav alias Shankar Kumar (son of the late Chandeshwar Rai; resident of Lodipur, currently residing at R.P.S. Mor, Bailey Road, Rupaspur Police Station)—conspired to recruit other notorious criminals into their fold. These recruits are: 3. Dharmendra Kumar (son of Kashi Rai; resident of Ganga Tola, Lodipur Bagicha), 4. Lalu Kumar (Dharmendra’s nephew; son of Buddhadev Rai; resident of Chakiya Tola, Chhitnava), and 5. Daroga Rai (son of the late Manik Rai; resident of Lodipur Buddha Tola). 6. Dhora Rai (son of Phudi Rai, alias Pahalban Singh; resident of Vyapur, Purvi Gali) and 7. Munna Rai (son of an unknown person; resident of Bhaggu Tola, Vyapur)—all belonging to the Maner Police Station area, District Patna—suddenly arrived by boat at the Om Sai Brick Kiln, where my husband and his friend, Vinay Kumar, were already present. All the assailants began firing with various weapons they were carrying, with the intent to kill. As a result, her husband and his friend, Vinay, were shot in the leg; Vinay Kumar then ran into the bushes to save his life. After being shot, her husband fled and hid inside the office of the Om Sai Brick Kiln. Inside the office, my husband and a staff member of the kiln—Mohan Rai (son of Shri Sukan Rai, resident of Lodipur, Maner Police Station, Patna)—locked the door from within. Then, all the named perpetrators approached the office while firing indiscriminately and began shooting at the door. Some of the perpetrators climbed onto the roof of the office and started removing the roof tiles. Mohan Rai, one of the named accused, was ordered to open the door; he complied, and then—acting in concert with the other accused—he joined them in murdering my husband. Subsequently, all these perpetrators disposed of my husband's body. Her husband's friend, Vinay Kumar, witnessed the entire incident while hiding in the bushes. Therefore, she request the SHO, Maner P.S. to please take necessary legal action against all the named eight accused persons. Manoj Kumar is the I.O.  of the case. 

Her compliant was registered on August 6, 2024. It reads:"सेवा में थानाध्यक्ष महोदय, मनेर थाना पटना। विषयः. मेरे पति देवनाथ राय के हत्या कर लाश गायब करने के संबंध में आवेदन। महाशय, विनम्रपुर्वक निवेदन के साथ कहना है कि मैं शिवकुमारी देवी पति देवनाथ राय सा० लोदीपुर जीवराखंड टोला पा० व्यापुर थाना मनेर जिला पटना कि स्थायी निवासी हूँ। मेरे पति देवनाथ राय एवं मेरे पति के दोस्त विनय कुमार पिता श्री मुरारी राय सा० लोदीपुर दोनो मिलकर दिनांक 05.08.024 को समय लगभग 10:00 बजे रात्रि में ओम साई ईंट भट्ठा पर धुमने गये हुए थे। उसी समय एक कुख्यात जो वेउर जेल में बंद है 1. सागर राय पिता काशी राय सा० लोदीपुर गंगा टोला एवं 2. उमाशंकर यादव उर्फ शंकर कुमार पिता स्व० चंदेश्वर राय सा० लोदीपुर वर्तमान पता R.P.S मोड़ बेली रोड थाना रूपसपुर इन दोनो साजिश करके कुछ कुख्यात अपराधियो को अपने मेल मे लाकर अपराधि का नाम 3. धर्मेन्द्र कुमार पिता काशी राय सा० गंगा टोला लोदीपुर बगीचा 4. लालु कुमार (धर्मेन्द्र के भगिना) पिता बुद्वदेव राय सा० चकिया टोला छितनावा 5. दरोगा राय पिता स्व0 मानिक राय सा० लोदीपुर बुद्वाटोला 6.ढोरा राय पिता फुदी राय उर्फ पहलबान सिंह सा० व्यापुर पुर्वी गली 7. मुन्ना राय पिता नामालुम सा० भग्गु टोला व्यापुर सभी थाना मनेर जिला पटना ने नाव से एकाएक ओम साई ईट भट्ठा पर पहुँचा जहा पहले से मेरे पति एवं उनके दोस्त विनय कुमार बैठे हुए थें। सभी अपराधी अपने अपने हाथ मे लिये कई तरह के हथियार से जान मारने कि नियत से फायरिंग करना शुरू कर दिया । जिससे मेरे पति एंव पति के दोस्त विनय को पैर में गोली लगी तब मेरे पति के दोस्त विनय कुमार जान बचाने के लिए झाड़ी में जाकर छिप गया। और मेरे पति गोली लगने के बाद ओम साई ईट भट्ठा के ऑफिस मे भागकर छिप गया। ऑफिस के अंदर मेरे पति के साथ ओम साई ईट भट्ठा के स्टॉफ 8. मोहन राय पिता श्री सुकन राय सा० लोदीपुर थाना मनेर जिला पटना दोनो ईंट भटठा के ऑफिस के अंदर दरवाज बंद कर लिया। तब सभी नामित अपराधी अंधाधुंध फायरिंग करते हुए ऑफिस के पास आकर दरवाजा पर गोली चलाने लगा। ओर कुछ अपराधी ऑफिस उपर चढ़कर खपड़ा हटाने लगा।नामित अभियुक्त मोहन राय को दरवाजा खोलने को कहा गया। जिसपर मोहन राय ने दरवाज खोल दिया जिसपर सभी उक्त अभियुक्त के साथ मोहन राय भी मिलकर मेरे पति कि हत्या कर दिया। और उक्त सभी अपराधी मिलकर मेरे पति के शव को ठिकाने लगा दिया। जिस घटना को घटित होते मेरे पति के दोस्त विनय कुमार ने झाड़ी से छुपकर देखा। अतः श्रीमान् से प्रार्थना है कि सभी नामजद 08 अभियुक्तो के विरूद्ध आवाश्यक कानुनी करवाई करने कि कृपा कि जाय। इसके लिए में श्रीमान् कि सदा आभारी रहूंगी। आपकी विश्वासी (शिवकुमारी देवी)". 

Will Shiv Kumar Devi, wife of Devnath Rai get justice? Isn't it a case where a habeas corpus petition should be filed in the High Court? 

Supreme Court sets aside regular bail rejection order by Justice Partha Sarthy in a rape case from Mohaniya, Kaimur, Bhabua

In Jokhan @ Jokhan Sant @ Dharmkant Sant vs. The State of Bihar Justice & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 4-page long order dated August 13, 2026, wherein, it set aside the order of Justice Partha Sarthy of Patna High Court. The order reads:"...we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. 10. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case." 

The appeal arose from the order dated January 21, 2026 rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant in connection with P.S. Mohaniya, Kaimur, Bhabua. According to the prosecution case, the victim was found on the terrace of Ramakant’s house. Ramakant is the father of the appellant. The victim complained to her mother that she became unconscious because some scented handkerchief was put on her face by the appellant and, thereafter, she does not remember as to what happened. 

The order records: "5. It is not in dispute that her medical examination was conducted promptly and the medical report found no injury and no signs of recent sexual intercourse. Even to the Doctor, she had not reported any incident of sexual intercourse or sexual assault on her. 6. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated; there is no medical report to corroborate the allegations which were leveled as an afterthought; and they never appeared in the First Information Report or in the statement of the victim made to the Doctor. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the appellant, who has no previous criminal antecedents and has suffered incarceration for a period exceeding one year, is entitled to be released on bail at this stage." The counsel for the State-respondent opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute that there was no specific allegation of sexual assault in the First Information Report and there is no corroboration of the aforesaid allegation in the medical examination report. 

Earlier, in Jokhan @ Jokhan Sant @ Dharmkant Sant vs. The State of Bihar & Anr (2025), Justice Partha Sarthy had passed a 2-page long order dated January 21, 2026, wherein, he had concluded:"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the material that has transpired in course of investigation specially the contents of the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. 7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later."

The petitioner had approached the High Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case no. 676 of 2025 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 64 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was accused of having assaulting and outraging the modesty of the minor daughter of the informant as a result of which she fell unconscious and regained consciousness after three to four hours in the hospital. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as a result of differences between the parties who are next door neighbours. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since August 5, 2025. Referring to the order of the trial Court, it was submitted that even as per the medical report, there is no finding of rape. The application for bail is opposed by APP for the State who submitted that the petitioner was named in the FIR and there is direct allegation against him. Even in her statement under section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim had given a detailed description of the assault etc by the petitioner.

Section 126 of the BNS defines and penalizes the offense of wrongful restraint, which occurs when someone voluntarily stops a person from moving in a direction they have a legal right to go. It replaces Section 341 of the IPC. 

Section 115 of BNS deals with voluntarily causing hurt. It replaces the old Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

 Section 76 of the BNS deals with the offense of assaulting or using criminal force against a woman with the intent to disrobe her or force her to be naked.

Section 64 of BNS has replaced Section 376 of the IPC to define the punishment for rape, mandating at least 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, potentially extending to life imprisonment, and a fine. Section 62 of BNS provides for punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.

Supreme Court grants bail to Shashi Kumar Ram, Justice Sandeep Kumar had denied it

In Shashi Kumar Ram vs, The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices  K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli passed a 3-page long order dated July 16, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"5. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending trial. 6. We direct that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, pending trial. 7. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms." 

The petitioner had questioned the correctness of the 2-page long order dated March 16, 2026 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court in Shashi Kumar Ram vs, The State of Bihar (2026) whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone approximately 7 months in custody, since he was arrested on December 29, 2025. He also submitted that the petitioner was roped in due to the confessional statement of the co-accused; there was no recovery of the contraband or incriminating material from the petitioner and the alleged recoveries have been made from the premises not owned, controlled and possessed by the petitioner. Taking the prosecution case at its highest, the petitioner was alleged to have handled the finances. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged activities like procurement, adulteration, storage or transportation. It was not in dispute that the other 4 accused are on bail.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No.523 of 2025 registered for the offence under sections 111, 303(2), 287, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, under section 3/4 of the Explosive substance Act and under section 7 of the E.C. Act. The petitioner and others were found manufacturing adulterated petrol. The petitioner was in custody since December 29, 2025. During investigation, it emerged that the petitioner is the financer behind the illicit business of manufacturing adulterated petrol. Kustice Kumar had declined to grant bail to the petitioner. 

Justice Arun Kumar Jha grants bail to a child in conflict with law, sets aside order Appellate Court, Saran and Juvenile Justice Board in a gang-rape case

Name of the offender juvenile anonymized, but the name of the victim of gang rape disclosed in the judgement, ignoring Supreme Court's repeated directions

In X vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 8-page long judgement dated June 29, 2026 concluded:"15. Let the petitioner, a child in conflict with law, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra/concerned Court in connection with JJB Case No. 51 of 2025, arising out of Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 22 of 2025, subject to the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors will be the parents of the petitioner and the other bailor will also be relative of the petitioner having no criminal antecedent and shall give undertaking that he / she shall keep proper care and upkeep of the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Board on each and every date of trial of the case fixed by the Board. (iii) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the learned J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra will be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond. 16. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed." 

The respondent no. 2 is Tannu Kumari is the daughter of Rajendra Kumar Yadav, resident of village near Sadha Dhala, Bazar Samiti, Mufassil, Saran was impleaded as a opposite party no. 2 on the directions of Justice Jha by his order dated February 23, 2026. The order reads:"Learned counsel for the petitioner is was directed to be implead the informant of Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 22 of 2025 as opposite party no. 2 in course of the day."

Justice set aside the order by the Appellate Court dated January 12, 2026 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2025. Subsequently, the order of the Juvenile Justice Board in a JJB Case of 2025, which arose out of a Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case of 2025 was also set aside. 

The judgement records that in the revision petition, the identity details of the petitioner /child in conflict with law was disclosed, which is against the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates protection of disclosure of identity of the child in conflict with law.  Therefore, the identity of the child in conflict with law is being referred to in the cause title as X. 3. Registry while uploading the order on the website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner. 

Notably, the petitioner is a son of Jitendra Ray, resident of village- New Basti Brahmpur, Bhagwan Bazar, Saran. His mother is Rinku Devi.  

The criminal revision petition was directed against the order dated January 12, 2026 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra, in a Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal of 2025, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra dated September 8, 2025 passed in JJB Case of 2025, which arose out of a Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 70(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, was affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 

As per prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons committed gang-rape with the informant. The petitioner was apprehended and was in custody since January 19, 2025 of the J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra. The petitioner was declared a child in conflict with law vide order dated August 11, 2025 passed by the J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra. 

Being aggrieved by the order dated January 12, 2026 passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner moved the revision petition before the High Court. 

The counsel for the petitioner/child in conflict with law submitted that the child in conflict with law was falsely implicated in this case and he was innocent. The prosecution story was not believable. The FIR was registered after a delay of more than twenty-four hours without any plausible explanation. Though the child in conflict with law was named as an accused in the written report on which the FIR was instituted, the informant did not name this child in conflict with law in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. He also submitted that the medical report did not support the allegation of gang-rape. The main accused against whom there was specific allegation of kidnapping the informant and taking her to a secluded place and committing rape with her, was been granted bail by First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra. The counsel further submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate the mandate of law as under Section 12 as well as Sections 3(i), 3(IV), 3(V) and 3(XIV) of the Act of 2015. The counsel also submitted that the Courts below failed to consider that prolonged detention of a child in conflict with law defeats the very objective of the J.J. Act which is reformative and rehabilitative in nature. It was submitted that mother of the child in conflict with law undertakes to take full care of her son and further undertakes that she would not allow the child in conflict with law to come in contact with bad elements. The child in conflict with law was having antecedent of five cases and  he was on bail in all these cases. 

APP for the State and the counsel for the OP No. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/child in conflict with law. The counsel for the OP No. 2 submitted that the Courts below has correctly passed the orders considering the antecedent of the child in conflict with law. The child in conflict with law was having altogether five criminal cases and he committed all these offences while on bail in two such cases. There was every likelihood that the child in conflict with law would again commit some serious offence if he was enlarged on bail. He also submitted that thus there was apparent mental, physical and psychological danger to the child in conflict with law (CICL) and it was also very likely that the CICL would again come in contact with his associates who appear to be inveterate criminals.

Justice Jha observed: "10. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 makes it clear that a CICL could be denied bail only on the ground that on release, the said child would come in contact with criminal elements or there was danger to the moral, physical and psychological well being of the CICL or the release would defeat the ends of justice. If these grounds are not present, the bail could not be denied to a CICL. 11. Further, the Act of 2015 is, in fact, child friendly. The central theme is that the interest of child is supreme. Section 3 of the Act of 2015 incorporates the general principles to be followed in the administration of the Act. According to which, “all decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential. In fact, Section 3(iv) of the Act of 2015 provides for the principle of best interest and for all decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential. Section 3(xii) of the Act of 2015 makes it abundantly clear that a child shall be placed in institutional care as a step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry. Further, Section 3(xiii) of the Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for Principle of repatriation and restoration stating that a CICL shall have the right to re-unite with his family and be restored to the social, cultural and the economic background that he came from unless such restoration and repartition is not in the CICL’s best interest." 

The judgement reads: "12. Cumulative reading of aforesaid provisions show the CICL should be released on bail unless the fact comes on record that there was chance of such child coming in contact with a known criminal or enlarging such child on bail might expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Further, the Courts being parens patriae are supposed to look into for protection of best interest of the child. All such steps are to be taken by the Courts for reformation and rehabilitation of a CICL." 

Justice Jha recorded: "It is true that the CICL is having antecedent of five cases and it also appears that he has been named in this case after release on bail in two such cases, but the intent and purpose of the J.J. Act is to reform a child delinquent and if the Court refused to release the child and bring him to his family would defeat the purpose if prayer for bail is rejected on the ground of criminal antecedent, though it becomes relevant factor for considering whether the case of the CICL falls in any of the exceptions under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. Since the bail of the CICL is refused solely on the ground of criminal antecedent, I think the CICL can be given an opportunity to reform himself and for reformation and rehabilitation of the CICL, the best place is his family and as his mother has undertaken to take care of him, I think considering all these facts and circumstances and the mandate of law, the prayer for bail of the CICL could be sympathetically considered." 

While the removal of the name of the a child in conflict with law has rightly been protected from disclosure, the disclosure of the name of the informant does appear to be appropriate.  

In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Hukum Chand @ Monu 2026 INSC 290, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh concluded:"we direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to all the Registrars General of the High Courts to ensure that in all matters dated prior to the passing of this Court’s judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (((2019) 2 SCC 703)) which has mandated the non-disclosure of the victim’s identity, and still pending, the proscription in Section 228-A IPC is followed strictly. This has been the long-standing position in law but, it has not been followed. The primary reason thereamongst, one supposes, is the general indifference of the Courts below and possibly even the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences." The Bench drew attention towards the Court's decisions in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh 1996) 2 SCC 384 which touched upon this issue in connection with Section 327 CrPC, and also towards Bhupinder Sharma vs. State of HP (2003) 8 SCC 551.

Law officer of government cannot appear in Courts against the State: Patna High Court

The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

-Article 39A, The Constitution of India 

The office of the Advocate General, Bihar issued an office order dated March 16, 2026, wherein, it referred to a "significant" order dated February 18, 2026 by the Patna High Court in Pappu Kumar Manjhi  vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1142 of 2024 with Arvind Kumar Manjhi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr 1195 of 2024, citing the provision contained in Rule 7(1) of the Law officers Engagement Rules, 2023. The office order pointed out that "the said rule does not permit law officer to appear against the State." 

The office order reads: "In the light of the judicial order, all Addl. Public Prosecutors being a Law officer as per the Rule 3(1)(f) of the said engagement rule, 2023, are hereby directed to ensure strict observance of the above order accordingly. 2. Under Secretary/Section officer of the Criminal Section is hereby directed to bring into the notice of the undersigned if any non-observance in this regard comes to the knowledge forthwith. 3. This order shall come into effect immediately."

The copy of the order was sent to the Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna, Secretary-cum-LR, Law Department, Government of Bihar, Under Secretary/Section officer, Office of the AG and all Additional Public Prosecutors, Patna High Court; for information and necessary action. The office order was issued by Navin Chandra, Joint Secretary, Secretary to Government of Bihar. 

In its order dated February 18, 202, the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Praveen Kumar recorded: " As soon as the matter was called out, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate appears to argue the matter. On finding that Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 is assisting Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate on behalf of the appellant even as he happens to be an Additional Public Prosecutor presently in the panel of the State, this Court raised a query as to whether he can appear on behalf of the private party against the State. 2. Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 was, in fact, asked this question earlier also by one of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court who was constituting the Bench in which the Criminal Appeal (DB) was being heard. He was put to caution, but despite lapse of substantial period, he has continued to do so."

It added: "3. This Court, therefore, sent a request to the learned Advocate General to appear and assist this Court in the matter as to whether Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 is permitted by the State to appear on behalf of the private party. The learned Advocate General has appeared and apprised this Court. It is informed that Rule 7(i) of the Law Officers Engagement Rules, 2023 published in the Gazette on the 4th of July, 2023 does not permit a law officer to appear against the State. A clear stand has been taken referring to the said rule that Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 cannot appear on behalf of the private party against the State." 

The order noted: "4. Having sensed the trouble, Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 offers an undertaking that he would henceforth either not accept any private brief in his chambers or he would immediately resign today itself as Additional Public Prosecutor. This Court is of the considered opinion that Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 being an experienced lawyer having spent about two decades at the Bar has been violating the rules which is bordering on the face of a breach of the professional ethics. 5. This Court invited the suggestions from the learned Advocate General and at the Bar and it has been the request of the learned Advocate General and the Bar that Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 may be allowed to resign today itself if he wants to continue with this private practice against the State and he may be left with an admonition only at this stage. 6. This Court accepts the suggestions at the Bar and is not directing initiation of any disciplinary action against Mr. Manish Kumar, No.2, however, the admonition will be there on the record. He may choose for himself the next course of action. 7. Let this matter be taken up tomorrow i.e. on 19.02.2026 for consideration on merit. 8. A copy of the order shall be made available to the learned Advocate General for his records." The order was authored by Justice Prasad. 

On the next date, the order dated February 20, 2026 was passed by Justice Prasad. The order did not mention Manish Kumar's name as the assisting counsel. It is clear that the matter ended with Court's admonition.    

Notably, Justice M.L. Jain of Delhi High Court too had an occasion to grapple with a similar situation in 1981. In Lt. Col. K.C. Sud, New Delhi vs. S.C. Gudimani. The Court had framed three questions: (1)Whether a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor or a panel lawyer for that matter, can appear against the State? (2)Whether it is permissible to the State or the Administration to permit a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor to appear against the State ? (3)Whether a Public Prosecutor can appear on behalf of the accused person in cases instituted on a complaint by a private party? 

Delhi High Court's answer to the three questions are as follows: "(1)The Public Prosecutor, the Additional Public Prosecutors cannot appear against the State in criminal matters. That is so even where the party has carefully avoided to implead the State as a party in a revision or an appeal, or any other criminal proceedings. This applies to panel lawyers as well, because no panel lawyer can appear without being appointed as an Addl. Public Prosecutor. (2)It is not permissible for the State or the Delhi Administration to allow the Public Prosecutor or the Addl. Public Prosecutor to appear against itself and it must provide so specifically in the terms of their appointment. (3) The Public Prosecutor cannot appear on behalf of the accused even in cases instituted on a complaint by a private party." Bihar too should adopt these answers in pursuit of comprehensive justice.  

Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Satyavrat Verma in a ca se from Govindganj, Motihari

In Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 5-page long order dated June 3, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "6. It is not in dispute that the conditions stand fully complied with; the appellant has cooperated during the investigation; he has not threatened or intimidated any of the witnesses; or has tried to influence the investigation in any manner. 7. We have noticed the nature of crime and the manner in which it was allegedly committed. 8. We allow the present appeal by confirming the order dated 21.04.2026, passed by this Court, with a direction to the appellant to continue to cooperate during the investigation/trial and not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. Also, the appellant shall report before the
Investigating Officer every alternate Monday, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., till such time the investigation is complete in all respects. 9. If the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court feels that the investigation/trial is delayed on account of the appellant’s conduct, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, including cancellation of bail. 10. Further, if the appellant possesses a passport, the same shall be surrendered before the Competent Authority/Court until the conclusion of the trial or directed otherwise. 11. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2026 is set aside."

The appellant had challenged the judgment and order dated March 24, 2026 in Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar”, passed by Justice Stayavrat Verma of the Patna High Court. 

On April 21, 2026, the Supreme Court had passed an order, which reads: "6. In the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 280 of 2025, registered at Govindganj Police Station, District Motihari, Bihar dated 20.11.2025, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Investigating/Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as imposed and found to be just, fair and reasonable."

Earlier, in Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Verma had passed a 3-page long order dated March 24, 2026, wherei, he had concluded:"the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected." The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 303(2), 336(4), 340(1), 340(2), 308(5), 61(2) and 111(1) of the BNS, 2023.  

Ajay Kumar Thakur, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petitioner had antecedent of one case and the informant alleged that petitioner called him on his mobile and introduced himself as having business of jewellery and called him to Muzaffarpur for buying jewellery, the informant went to Muzaffarpur and saw jewellery worth crore of rupees and said that he will come back with money, accordingly, the informant along with his friend went to buy jewellery, but before reaching Muzaffarpur, made a call when petitioner asked him to come near Areraj accordingly, the informant along with his friend went to the place where he was called by the petitioner, further the petitioner took him to the hose of Amresh and disclosed that the house is also for sale and showed jewellery, further petitioner in the meantime made a call when 7-8 accused on 3-4 motorcycles came and took Rs. 19 Lakhs along with other articles and started fleeing, when his friend caught an accused who disclosed his name as Surendra and also disclosed that petitioner, Amresh and others are part of organized gang who fled with the articles and cash. 

The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it was also submitted that the mobile from which the informant got a call does not belong to the petitioner. It was submitted that even the informant dealt in business of purchasing looted jewellery. It was further submitted that petitioner was engaged in business with one Neha Kumari, wife of the brother of the petitioner and the informant had given money to Neha but when the deal failed, the instant false case came to be instituted.

A.P.P. for the State had opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submitted that Neha is also an accused in the instant case. It was also submitted that if informant was dealing in purchasing looted jewellery in that event the same would surface during the course of investigation and appropriate action would be taken, but then as far as the petitioner was concerned, the mobile may not belong to him, but when informant before reaching Muzaffarpur called him on the mobile from which he had received a call from the petitioner earlier, the same was picked by petitioner again. It was submitted that the informant specifically alleged that petitioner along with others were operating an organized crime. It also submitted that investigation of the case is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

High Court cannot impose civil suit-related conditions while granting anticipatory bail: Supreme Court

In Nehru Irulandi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Vishwanathan delivered judgment dated May 27, 2026, wherein, it set aside order dated February 24, 2026 by Madras High Court's condition restraining accused from interfering with disputed property, holding that criminal courts cannot effectively grant relief pending in a civil suit. The Supreme Court held that conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail cannot amount to granting relief that is yet to be decided by a civil court.

It set aside the condition prohibiting the appellants from interfering with the disputed property until the civil suit was decided. It clarified that all other conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail would continue to remain in force.

It observed that if the complainant, as plaintiff in the civil suit, apprehends breach of peace or interference with the suit property, he is free to seek appropriate relief before the civil court or any other appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Perunazhi Police Station, Madurai, for offences under Sections 189(2), 329(3), 324(4), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. While granting anticipatory bail to the appellants and other co-accused, the high court had directed them not to interfere with the disputed property until the conclusion of a civil suit filed by the complainant.

Responding to the question: can a High Court impose civil suit-related conditions while granting anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court answered in the negative. It held that such a condition effectively amounted to granting relief in the civil suit itself. The Court observed that the appellants were defendants in a civil suit filed by the complainant seeking a permanent injunction. It factored in the fact that the appellant's claim that he had purchased the suit property.

The judgement reads: "Prima facie, it appears that the case of the appellant, namely, Nehru Irulandi as one of the defendants is that he has purchased the suit property. Be that as it may, the Suit is of the year 2019. The plaintiff has not prayed for any injunction pending the Suit".

Supreme Court recorded that although an application seeking interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed, it had not yet been taken up for hearing by the civil court.

The judgement reads:"We are of the view that while granting anticipatory bail, high court should not have imposed a condition which tantamount to granting of some relief in the suit itself, which otherwise the civil court has not granted."

The Division Bench held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction in a criminal matter, could not impose a condition that effectively granted a relief which the civil court itself had not granted.

Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh in a case from Jehanabad

In Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George passed a 4-page long order dated May 26, 2026, wherein, it concluded:" 7. We allow the present appeal by confirming the order dated 27.04.2026, passed by this Court, with a direction to the appellant to continue to cooperate during the investigation/trial and not to take any unnecessary adjournment. Also, the appellant shall report before the Investigating Officer every alternate Monday, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., till such time the investigation is complete in all respects. 8. If the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court feels that the investigation/trial is delayed on account of the appellant’s conduct, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, including cancellation of bail. 9. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2026 is set aside." The impugned order was passed by Patna High Court's Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh.

The appellant had challenges the judgment and order by Justice Singh. On April 27, 2026, the Supreme Court had passed an order, which reads: "8. In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.5790020250137 of 2025 of Kako Police Station, Jehanabad District, Bihar, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. However, in the attending facts, one of the conditions shall necessarily be that if the petitioner possesses a passport, the same shall be deposited before the Competent Authority/Court, till the
conclusion of the Trial or directed otherwise. 9. The petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer on 04.05.2026 at 10:00 a.m. and on all such dates as he may be required. 10. Needless to add, till the investigation is not complete in all respects, the petitioner would fully cooperate, and if the challan/charge sheet is filed, he would maintain good conduct and not attempt to influence any
of the witnesses in any manner till the completion of the trial.”

Supreme Court's May 2026 order pointed out that "5.Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty It is not in dispute that the conditions stand fully complied with; the appellant has cooperated during the investigation; he has not threatened or intimidated any of the witnesses; or has tried to influence the investigation in any manner. 6. We have noticed the nature of crime and the manner in which it was allegedly committed.

Earlier, in Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Prabhat Kumar Singh passed a 2-page long order dated March 12, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"3. As per F.I.R., this petitioner is alleged to have created obstruction in construction of ‘pucca nala’ work and also assaulted informant, who is a government employee while executing his government lawful duty, and due to which, the construction work could not be completed. 4. Considering the nature of accusation, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected." Supreme Court has reversed Justice Singh's order. 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in Kako P.S. Case of 2025, registered for offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 110 and 132 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023, which pertain to rioting, wrongful restraint,  voluntarily causing hurt, and attempt to commit culpable homicide respectively. The case was filed in the High Court on September 8, 2025 and registered on September 10, 2025.

Sakali Devi is alive, High Court accepts apology of Rakesh Kumar Sharma, SHO, Tajpur Police Station, SP, Samastipur who reported her to be dead

In  Sakali Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice S K Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar passed a 12-page long judgment dated May 12, 2026 dealt with an error in reporting death appellant. The core legal dispute was the erroneous abatement of a criminal appeal based on an incorrect police report stating the appellant, Sakali Devi, had died. The respondent no. 2 was Ashok Kumar Singh, Nikaspur, Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur.

The application was filed by Sakali Devi to recall the abatement order and restore her appeal, arguing that she was alive. The court ruled to restore the appeal because the report of the appellant's death, which led to the abatement, was factually incorrect. The police officials responsible for the erroneous report admitted their mistake, tendered unconditional apologies, and explained that the error was due to misidentification stemming from incomplete identifying details (lack of husband's name) in the initial inquiry. The court deemed the error to be inadvertent and genuine. The order dated March 13, 2026, which abated Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 377 of 2015, was recalled. The Criminal Appeal was restored to its original file. The unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer was accepted. 

The March 13, 2026 order reads: "Perused Letter No. 155 dated 11.02.2026 of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur along with the report of S.H.O., Tajpur Police Station, wherein it is indicated that during the enquiry it came to light that the sole appellant, namely Sakli Devi, is dead. 2. In view of the said letter and having regard to Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which corresponds to Section 435 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and inasmuch as no near relative has filed any application seeking leave to continue the appeal, the present Criminal Appeal stands abated and is accordingly disposed of." This order was passed due to misrepresentation by the police officials. 

The suspension order issued against the Station House Officer, Tajpur, was directed to be revoked. The Criminal Miscellaneous application was disposed of. Sakali Devi had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous application seeking to recall an order dated March 13, 2026, which had abated her Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 377 of 2015. The abatement occurred because the police, specifically the SHO of Tajpur Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, had submitted a report erroneously stating that Sakali Devi was dead, misidentifying her with another person of the same name. Sakali Devi presented evidence that she was alive and well, including official documents and a certificate from the Gram Panchayat Mukhiya. Both the Superintendent of Police and the SHO appeared before the court, tendered unconditional and unqualified apologies, and admitted the error was inadvertent due to the lack of complete parentage details in the initial request for the appellant's status. The Superintendent of Police had suspended the SHO for this lapse. 

The High Court accepted their apologies, recalled the abatement order and restored the original criminal appeal, and directed the revocation of the SHO's suspension, acknowledging the mistake as genuine. The court also directed its own Joint Registrar (List) to ensure complete appellant details are provided when seeking status reports in the future.

Supreme Court reverses Justice Anil Kumar Sinha's order denying anticipatory bail

In Bablu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol  and Augustine George Masih passed a 3-page long order dated May 8, 2026, wherein, it reversed the 2-page long order dated March 19, 2026 passed by Justice Anil Kumar Sinha of Patna High Court. The petitioner challenged the order by the High Court. The Supreme Court's order concluded: "8. In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.5804036250020 of 2025 of Korma Police Station, Sheikhpura District, Bihar, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. However, in the attending facts, one of the conditions shall necessarily be that if the petitioner possesses a passport, the same shall be deposited before the Competent Authority/Court, till the conclusion of the Trial or directed otherwise. The order recorded: "10. Needless to add, till the investigation is not complete in all respects, the petitioner(s) would fully cooperate, and if the challan/charge sheet is filed...."

The application, for grant of anticipatory bail, had arisen out of a Korma Police Station Case of 2025, disclosing offences under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. As per the prosecution case, on February 15, 2025 at about 7:00 PM, the informant’s 17-year-old daughter, Savita Kumari, went to the fields and was allegedly abducted by several accused persons who lured her with the intention of marriage. Despite efforts, she could not be traced and her mobile phone was found switched off. The informant fears that the accused may cause harm to his daughter. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and he had falsely been implicated in the case due to ulterior motives. He submitted that petitioner had no connection with the alleged occurrence and he was merely the brother of co-accused Deepak Kumar. The petitioner asserted that the informant’s daughter had voluntarily left her home owing to a consensual relationship with the co-accused Deepak Kumar. It was also submitted that the FIR disclosed only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner without any specific role attributed to him. The petitioner had denied having any knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the co-accused and the informant’s daughter. He submitted that the case was lodged maliciously with the intent to harass and exert pressure upon the petitioner. 

Justice Sinha had concluded; "Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that minor girl has been kidnapped, there is allegation against the petitioner that he along with Deepak Kumar and others kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and the girl has not yet been recovered, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. This application is, accordingly, rejected."