Judgements in cases from Araria which were sets aside by Supreme Court or Patna High Court

January 2026: In Md. Anwar @ Anwar vs. The State of Bihar and Rahmina Praween (2026), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 10-page long judgment dated January 6, 026, wherein, he set aside the judgment/order dated March 4, 2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court) Araria and order dated January 13, 2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Araria rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail in connection with J.J.B. Case No.117 of 2024, which arose out of Araria Mahila PS Case No. 44 of 2024 for the offences under  Section 341, 376, 313, 417/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 

Justice Jha concluded: "I am of the considered opinion that the child in conflict with law could be released on bail and accordingly petitioner/CICL be released on bail..."14.Accordingly, the Judgment/Order dated  04.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court) Araria and order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Araria are set aside and hence, the present revision petition stands allowed."

The case leading to the institution of the petition was that Rahmina Praween, the opposite party no. 2  lodged a case vide Araria Mahila P.S. Case No. 44 of 2024 with allegation that the while she was alone in  her house, this petitioner forced upon her by gagging her mouth  and later on gave her allurement of marriage. By giving this  inducement of marriage, he kept on committing rape with her. When she became pregnant, the petitioner gave her some medication and her pregnancy was aborted by taking her to a  doctor. The petitioner refused to marry the opposite party no. 2 and in panchayati the petitioner and his family members refused to solemnize marriage with the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner/child in conflict with law (CICL) was taken  in custody on October 17, 2024. The CICL moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Araria for grant of bail but his prayer was rejected and his petition for bail was dismissed vide order dated January 13, 2025. The CICL preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed vide order dated March 4, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge (Children's Court) Araria. The CICL approached the High Court impugning the two orders. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case due to ill motive of the victim. The petitioner was declared juvenile vide order dated  October 30, 2024 by the JJB Araria and the age of the petitioner was 12 years 06 months and 21 days on the date of occurrence and had got no criminal antecedent. The age of the victim is about 18 years. The counsel further submitted that the orders of the Courts below are bad in the eye of law as well as on facts. The Courts have not considered the false implication of the CICL and the fact that he was deprived of care and protection of his family by placing him in custody. There was no possibility of petitioner doing any harm to the victim or any of the witnesses. The Social Investigation Report and social background report did not make out any case to keep the CICL in custody. It was only mentioned that there was lack of discipline in the house and father of the CICL was a labourer. It was also mentioned that the CICL had studied up to Class V only. His friends were also illiterate. There was no chance of CICL falling in bad company and his family members did not have any criminal antecedent. Therefore, the petitioner ought to be released on bail after setting aside the impugned orders as both the Courts below passed erroneous orders.

Taking note of the provisions under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Justice Jha  observed that it is 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 and there was danger to the moral, physical and psychological well being of the CICL or would defeat the ends of justice. If these grounds are not present, the bail could no be denied to a CICL."

Justice Jha drew on the relevant portion of Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides for the guiding principles of care and protection of children like (i) Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years, (ii) Principle of dignity and worth: All human beings shall be treated with equal dignity and rights, (iii) Principle of participation: Every child shall have a right to be heard and to participate in all processes and decisions affecting his interest and the childs views shall be taken into consideration with due regard to the age and maturity of the child, (iv) Principle of best interest: 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, (v) Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be, (vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the care and protection system, and thereafter....,(viii) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial or accusatory words are not to be used in the processes pertaining to a child....,(xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry and (xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration: Every child in the juvenile justice system shall have the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest and to be restored to the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest..."

Justice Jha observed: "10. Cumulative reading of these two provisions show the CICL could 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 endanger his moral, physical or psychological well being. 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 child in conflict with law.11. In the facts of the present case, no doubt the alleged offence is very serious but the bail to a child in conflict with law could be denied only under specific circumstances as mentioned hereinbefore. Otherwise the bail is a rule and jail is an exception in case of CICL as well. The CICL has remained in custody since 17.10.2024 and now his parents are ready and willing to take care of him and to protect his best interest so that he does not fall in bad company or get involved in any other offence." 

Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna who is an amicus curiae in the special laws/courts matter said, "The High Court frequently intervenes whenever it finds that Araria's trial courts adopt hardline approaches toward juvenile offenders, overriding statutory reform principles contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court."

February 12, 2026: In Ankit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarthna and Ujjal Bhuyan passed a order dated February 12, 2026, wherein, it set aside the order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court and granted leave granted. The appellant had challenged the order dated July 1, 2025 passed by Justice Singh. Apprehending arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 5140075250013/2025 registered at Women Police Station, District–Araria for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 69, 352, 351(3), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Justice Singh had rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations as against the appellant are not true; however, investigation as against him is on and he has cooperated with the investigation; that the Supreme Court by order dated July 21, 2025 had granted interim protection to the appellant herein. The order was made absolute by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Supreme Court observed:"Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 482 BNSS. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside the order passed by the High Court. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail...."

 

  

 

Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sunil Dutta Mishra bench sets aside order by Special Judge, NIA, Patna after Supreme Court remittd the case back to the High Court

In Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani vs. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra delivered a 30-page long judgement dated October 6, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"38. In the present case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate that the ground(s) for arrest/detention have been furnished in writing. Even as time was granted to the respondent, no document showing service of grounds of arrest in writing has been placed before this Court. 39. We have further found from the transit remand order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, that before the learned magistrate Bihar police produced the Case- diary (C.D. File) and a remand petition but there is nothing to indicate that the copy of the C.D. File and the remand application was served on the appellant two hours before his production before the learned magistrate. Therefore, in this case the prejudice caused to the accused is evident. The learned Magistrate didn’t satisfy himself with the compliance of Article 22 of the constitution of India read with section 50 Cr.P.C. [Now section 47 & 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (In short ‘BNSS’)]. Perhaps, in absence of the service of grounds of arrest the accused- appellant couldn’t file an application for bail immediately before the learned CJM at Budgam, and before the learned special judge NIA at Patna. 40. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case for interference. His arrest cannot be sustained. 41. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment/order of the learned trial court and direct that the appellant shall be released from custody, giving him the benefit of the ratio in the case Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). The appellant shall be released on bail forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. The learned trial court may impose such other conditions as may deem fit and proper to secure the attendance of the appellant in course of trial. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 42. It will be open to the learned trial court to secure presence of the appellant in course of trial, if occasion so arises, by issuing coercive order(s) in accordance with law. 43. This appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above."

The Criminal Appeal was preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.2. The appellant was aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated July 15, 2025 (in Proceeding No. III) passed by Special Judge, NIA, Patna rejecting his prayer for regular bail in Special Case No. 10 of 2024, which arose out of Banjariya P.S. Case No. 229 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 317(5), 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 178, 179, 180, 181, 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case is based on the self- statement of ASI Indrajeet Paswan recorded on September 5, 2024 at 18.15 hrs at NH-28A near Kharwa Pool, Banjaria, District-East Champaran, Motihari. In his self-statement, the informant has stated that on 05.09.2024 at about 5:30 hours in the evening, he along with other police personnel proceeded for patrolling and vehicle checking. When they reached near Shankar Dhaba, they got secret information that that from Jhakiya village three persons on one without number plate red coloured motorcycle are coming towards Khandwa Pool. One of the three persons have beard who was wearing blue colour T-shirt and black coloured pant and was carrying black coloured backpack in front of his stomach as also he is the person who was driving the motorcycle. Second person was wearing Khaki coloured Fullshirt and Blue coloured Jeans pant and third person was wearing white coloured T-shirt with lining and Black coloured Jeans Pant. All of them were carrying fake Indian notes. On this information, the informant has informed the senior officials and with the Shashtra Bal personnels, they proceeded towards Khandwa Pool where they found one red motorcycle with above description and three persons on it was coming. On seeing police personnel, they tried to flee away, but police personnel chased them and nabbed all three persons. Seeing this action of the police, nearby people gathered there. Thereafter, police asked their names. They told their names as (1) Md. Nazar Saddam, (2) Md. Waris and (3) Md. Jakir Hussain. The informant requested the people who have assembled there to become witness to the production-cum-seizure list to which all of them refused by saying that these accused persons are outsiders, if we become witness, anything bad can happen to us. Thereafter, two of the raiding team members, namely, Sukhram Bharti and Aditya Kumar were made witnesses to the production-cum-seizure list. Police asked for papers of the motorcycle from Md. Nazar Saddam but he could not produce any papers. The Engine number and chasis number of the motorcycle was worn out. It seems that the motorcycle was stolen one. On search of black coloured backpack, some clothes and hundred notes of 500 Rupees (total 50,000/-) two Aadhar Cards of Md. Nazar Saddam of different addresses was found. On search of his pant, hundred notes of 500 Rupees (total 50,000/-) was found. On search of Md. Waris, from his pant’s pocket, eighty notes of Rs. 500/- and from his shirt’s pocket twenty notes of Rs. 500/- (total Rs.50,000/-) was found. And on search of Md. Jakir Hussain, sixty notes or Rs.500/- from his pant’s pocket and thirty notes of Rs.500/- from his shirt’s pocket (total 45,000/-) was found. Altogether from all the three persons, three hundred ninety (390) fake notes total of Rs.1,95,000/- was found. On further interrogation, they disclosed that they used to carry these fake Indian currency from Pakistan via Nepal through one Rajesh Sahni. They used to transport these fake notes via Delhi to Sarfaraj @ Muzaffar Ahamd resident of Jammu Kashmir. They disclosed that they have done this many times earlier also. In the presence of two witnesses named above, seizure list was prepared, on these three accused persons have
put their signature. The informant alleged that from the above facts, it is clear that these three accused persons in conspiracy with other named accused persons were trying to use fake Indian notes in the market.

The investigation of the case was handed over to the NIA vide order dated December 10, 2024 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Before handing over the investigation to the NIA, the Bihar Police had already completed the investigation of the case and submitted a charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No. 310 of 2024 dated October 24, 2024 against four accused persons, namely, Mohammad Waris, Mohammad Nazar Saddam, Mohammad Zakir Hussain and Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani (the present appellant).

The appellant was arrayed accused number 4 in the charge-sheet. The seized mobile phone as allegedly revealed contained various PDF files of counterfeit currency notes, incriminating voice clips, photographs of suspected persons along with their contact details as well as incriminating chats related to the procurement and supply of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN). His connections with the co-accused have been highlighted in the charge-sheet filed by the NIA.

It was the case of the appellant that he was innocent, had not committed any offence and that the appellant was not arrested on the spot and nothing incriminating was recovered from his conscious possession. It was submitted that whatever counterfeit Indian currencies were recovered, were recovered from the possession of the persons arrested from the spot, one of whom is accused number 1. The appellant had interactions through Social media platform and by virtue of this interaction, they had developed a business relation. The appellant claimed that he was running a business of poultry farm at his local place and was exploring the idea of selling fruit through e-commerce platform, and in that process he came in contact with Nazar Saddam (A1) who was running an e-commerce business with the name of Zamad Online Shopping and Service Private Limited. In connection with the investment in the business in the e-commerce company of Zamad the appellant started investing his money from time to time. The story of transferring money for procuring ‘FICN’ was completely false and without any corroborative legal evidence. The appellant had taken a specific ground in paragraph ‘27’ of his memorandum of appeal that the appellant was arrested in complete violation of the law as the appellant was not served with the grounds of arrest, which would make his arrest completely illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. It was lalso submitted that the charges under Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act (UAPA) would not be attracted in the present case. The prerequisites for inviting applicability of these Sections is that there must be a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the UA(P) Act. It was submitted that in this case the appellant has neither produced, nor smuggled, or circulated the high quality counterfeit Indian currency or coin or any material. The counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case although trial is going on, till date only 3 out of 91 witnesses had been examined. The trial was not likely to be concluded in near future within a stipulated period. 

It was submitted that earlier the High Court had occasion to consider the prayer of the appellant for bail. The High Court had refused to enlarge the appellant on vide order dated February 24, 2026. The Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1478 of 2025 preferred by theappellant was dismissed. 

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court, the appellant had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3238 of 2026 (SLP (Crl) No. 8196 of 2026) before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, having gone through the order of the High Court, noticed that the issue pertaining to the non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest to the appellant, though raised, had not been considered by the High Court. For this reason, without going into the merit of the case, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted it to the High Court to consider the said issue while deciding the bail application of the appellant.

In this background, the appeal was once again taken up for consideration on September 17, 2026. On that date, the High Court passed the following order:-“Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar learned counsel for the N.I.A. 2. This appeal has been taken up for consideration in view of the remand made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.07.2026 in SLP (CRL.) No. 8196 of 2026. It is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court having gone through the impugned order found that one of the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant was that the written ground of the arrest memo was not furnished to the accused-appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this ground was not considered by the High Court.

In his submissions, Md. Tahir, counsel for the appellant has placed before the High Court, judgments of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. vs. State Rep. By Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650 and Dr. Rajinder Ranjan vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 802. It was submitted that all these recent judgments of the Supreme Court have taken note of the judgment rendered in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500 in which the Supreme Court has taken a view that the ground of arrest in writing, it should effectively serve the intended purpose as envisaged under the Constitution of India and the ground of arrest must be made available within two hours minimum interval before the production of the accused before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that non-compliance with this direction would be in the teeth of the arrestee's constitutional right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

The appellant's counsel had also submitted that in the remand requisition submitted before the Court seeking transition, there was no mention of furnishing of written grounds of arrest.

When the appeal was taken up for consideration, the ASG representing the NIA categorically stated that no written grounds of arrest seems to have been furnished to the appellant. 

Justice Prasad recorded that the counsel for the appellant solely focused on his submissions with regard to
non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest, therefore, the High Court is not going into any other aspect of the matter at this stage.

In the case of Vihaan Kumar, the Supreme Court concluded: “26. Therefore, we conclude: 26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); 26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; 26.3. When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the investigating officer/agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); 26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge-sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge-sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 26.5. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”

Justice Prsad observed:"...it turns out that mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the  constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The objective of the constitutional mandate is to place the person in a position to comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him and it can only be realised when the grounds are furnished in a language understood by the person, thereby enabling him to exercise his rights effectively. 52. From the catena of decisions discussed above, the legal position which emerges is that the constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form of fundamental rights. The intent and purpose of the constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested person to defend himself. If the provisions of Article 22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended purpose of securing personal liberty would not be achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse.”

In the penultimate paragraphs of the judgement, Justice Prasad concluded:" (i) The constitutional mandate and the statutory mandate as contained under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the CrPC leave no room for doubt that it would be necessary for the investigating agency/arresting authority, that a copy of the written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. This has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576:
(ii) If the arrest memo is simply a proforma indicating that the grounds of arrest has been conveyed, it would not be a compliance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) and Dr. Rajindra Rajan (supra): and
(iii) Templates of the arrest memo containing the statement to the effect that the arresting officer explained the grounds of arrest to the accused before the arrest, is no compliance with the mandate of Article 22 of the constitution of India read with section 50 and 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Now Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS); and
(iv) The judgment in Sri Darshan’s case (supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a clear finding that the arrest memos and remand orders reflected that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. In such circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that no material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the present case, the facts are entirely different, therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Darshan’s case (supra) is to be read as explained in the case of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) in paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment. 37. In terms of paragraph ‘66.3’ of the judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Sah (supra), the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case, at least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee for remand before the Magistrate.

Summons issued by a Court under Sections 63 or 71 of BNSS, 2023, and a notice issued by an Investigating Agency under Section 35 of BNSS are different: Supreme Court

In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2025 INSC 909, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. K. Singh delivered a 21-page long judgement dated July 16, 2025, wherein, it has held that summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023, has no immediate bearing on the liberty of an individual in case of its non-compliance. However, a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 could have an immediate bearing on the liberty of the individual in case of its non-compliance, as laid down under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023.  A summons issued by a Court under Sections 63 or 71 of the BNSS, 2023, and a notice issued by the Investigating Agency under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 travel on different footings and cannot be equated with each other. A summons issued by a Court is a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the Investigating Agency is an executive act. Hence, the procedure prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into the procedure prescribed for an executive act.

The judgement reads: "41.The usage of electronic communication by the Investigating Agency, has only been provided for effecting the procedure under Sections 94 and 193 of the BNSS, 2023. 42. Section 94 deals with issuance of summons, in an electronic form, to produce a document. Section 193 deals with the usage of electronic communication for forwarding the report to a Magistrate, upon completion of the investigation, or to inform the progress of the investigation to the informant or victim. None of these procedures have any bearing on the liberty of an individual. 43. Hence, when viewed from any lens, we are unable to convince ourselves that electronic communication is a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, since its conscious omission is a clear manifestation of the legislative intent. Introducing a procedure into Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, that has not been specifically provided for by the Legislature, would be violative of its intent."

Supreme Court concluded: "We further wish to take note of the fact that the BNSS, 2023 does not entirely preclude the use of electronic communication by the Investigating Agency. The Legislature has envisioned the use of electronic communication, during the course of investigation, and upon completion of investigation by the Investigating Agency, specifically provided for under Sections 94(1) and 193(3) of the BNSS, 2023 respectively. 

Section 94(1) of the BNSS, 2023 reads: “94. Summons to produce document or other thing-(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document, electronic communication, including communication devices, which is likely to contain digital evidence or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons or such officer may, by a written order, either in physical form or in electronic form, require the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.” 

Section 193(3) of the BNSS, 2023 reads: “193. Report of a Police Officer on the completion of investigation-***(3)(i) As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward, including through electronic communication to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form as the State Government may, by rules provide, stating—
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond;
(g) whether the accused has been forwarded in custody under Section 190;
(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or Section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
(i) the sequence of custody in case of electronic device;
(ii) the police officer shall, within a period of ninety days, inform the progress of the investigation by any means including through electronic communication to the informant or the victim;
(iii) the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.”
 

Supreme Court issues notice to Registrar General, Patna High Court for contempt of court, impleads High Court through him as a Party-Respondent in a case related to a "strange" order by A.C.J.M.-8, Motihari

In Manju Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih passed a 2-page long order dated September  22, 2026, which reads:"1. The report sought for by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2026 has not been sent by the Registrar General, High Court of Patna. 2. Let the High Court of Patna be joined as a party-respondent through its Registrar General. Memo of parties be amended accordingly. 3. A Show Cause Notice be issued to the Registrar General, High Court of Patna, as to why the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. 4. The reply to the Show Cause Notice shall be filed on an affidavit by the Registrar General himself. 5. It is made clear that if the Registrar General fails to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, proceedings for committing contempt of court shall be initiated against the Registrar General, Patna High Court. 6. List the matter on 26.10.2026." 

Supreme Court's order dated May 15, 2026 reads:"The order dated 31.01.2026 recorded in the Court of A.C.J.M.-8, Motihari District, Bihar records the following: 'As per the direction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, Physical verification has been conducted. Upon Physical verification, the present record could not be found despite due and diligent search. Accordingly, the same is disposed of as untraced. However, if the said record is traced in future, the proceeding shall commence immediately in accordance with law. Let necessary entries be made in the relevant register.' 2. It is strange that a Judicial Officer has very conveniently recorded in the order that the record could not be found, therefore, the case is disposed of as untraced. 3. Let the Registrar, High Court of Patna, initiate enquiry as to how the court record is misplaced or untraced. 4. The responsibility be fixed, action taken and information be sent to this court before the next date of hearing. 5. List the matter on 22.09.2026." 

The order of the Supreme Court pertains to the order dated January 31, 2026 by ACJM, Motihari, which was required to be inquired into by the Registrar of Patna High Court.  The million dollar question is: If the judicial officer of any court in the country is informed that a record of court is "untraced", what does judicial discipline obligate him to do. Is any judge in any case permitted to pass an order saying "disposed of as untraced"?   

In its 2-page long order dated December 1, 2025, the Supreme Court had directed that "the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR No. 306/2024, registered with Police Station-Pakridayal...." By subsequent orders of the Court the interim order was extended. 

The order dated September 22, 2026 added:"7. The Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court shall inform the Registrar General, Patna High Court, about this order and copy of entire record of proceedings be served to the Registrar General, Patna High Court. 8. The interim order granted earlier on 01.12.2025 shall continue till the next date of hearing and the petitioner(s) shall join the investigation by appearing before the concerned SHO between 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM on 05.10.2026. 9. The respondent-State of Bihar shall file a supplementary counter-affidavit before the next date of hearing."   

The petitioner no. 2 is Baiju Sahani, the husband of Manju Devi and the respondent no. 2 is Registrar General, Patna High Court. 

Notably, Rupesh Deo, the current Registrar General, Patna High Court is on the post since August 3, 2026. The current Chairman, Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Patna, P. K. Malik was the Registrar General from February 5, 2024 till April 2026. The current Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly, S.G. Mishra served as the Registrar General of the from April 20, 2026 till July 2026. 

Earlier, in Manju Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court had passed a 2-page long order dated October 16, 2025, wherein, he had concluded:"5. Learned APP, Mr. Bharat Bhushan and learned counsel for the informant have jointly taken this Court to the injury report which are the part of the case diary to show that the injuries on the injured persons namely Akhilesh Sahni and Naresh Sahni have been found to be grievous in nature. 6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts as also that the injuries have been found to be grievous in nature, in that background, no relief can be extended. 7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected." The petitioner no. 2 is Baiju Sahani, the husband of Manju Devi. The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in connection with Pakarideyal P.S. Case No. 306 of 2024 instituted under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 76, 303(2) of B.N.S., 2023 lodged on December 3, 2024 by the informant, Rekha Devi.  As per the prosecution story, the informant’s cousin father-in-law was assaulted by Baiju Sahani and Arvind Kumar with iron rod beside Manju Devi assaulted with ‘Kudal’. As he fell down, the husband came to rescue, the allegation is that Baiju Sahani and Babita Devi gave iron rod blow causing fracture on the hand. Further allegation is of snatching of gold chain. They were referred to Muzaffarpur for better treatment. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there is a case and counter case, land dispute has led to the filing of the FIR No. 306/24 dated December 3, 2024, the petitioners did not have any criminal antecedent. Unlike the High Court, the Supreme Court granted protection to the petitioners.  

 

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 the case 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.