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."

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra

In Suraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan passed a 2-page long order dated May 6, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"5. We are informed that out of nine accused persons, all the four lady accused have been released on bail. The High Court initially had protected the petitioner from any coercive steps being taken against him. 6. In the overall view of the matter, particularly the genesis of the occurrence and the fact that they all are  neighbors, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favor of the petitioner. 7. We order that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR, referred to above, he shall be released on bail by the IO subject to terms and conditions that he may deem fit to impose. 8. Once the petitioner is released by the IO, he shall thereafter furnish fresh bonds to the Trial Court." Prior to that the allowed the exemption applications.

The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court through SLP after being denied anticipatory bail by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in connection with the First Information Report of 2025 registered with Singhaul Police Station,  Begusarai for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 respectively.

Supreme Court took "notice of the fact that in the FIR, nine persons have been named as accused. Out of nine, four are ladies." It observed: "4. It is evident on plain reading of the FIR, the other materials on record and also the impugned Order passed by the High Court that the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses are neighbors. On the date of the incident, they picked up a fight which ultimately led to an assault. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons attempted to commit murder. Whether it is a case of attempt to commit murder or not will be looked into by the Trial Court in the course of trial."

In his order dated February 11, 2026, Justice Mishra had rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date of occurrence, the named accused persons including petitioner came to the house of informant Aarti Kumari and started beating her and her husband. The petitioner was alleged to have assaulted the informant’s husband with iron rod on back of his head due to which he fell down and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted him with bricks and stone as a result of which the husband of informant sustained injuries. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case due to dirty village politics. The informant and the petitioner were agnates. The petitioner had clean antecedent. A.P.P. for the State had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by contending that there was direct allegation of assault to the husband of informant on his head with iron rod against the petitioner causing head injury. He further submitted that the injury report showed that the injury caused to the injured was found to be grievous in nature. Therefore, the petitioner did not deserve anticipatory bail. In such a backdrop, Justice Mishra was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 

Supreme Court grants pre-arrest bail, Justice Ansul of Patna High Court had rejected anticipatory bail application

In Babita Devi @ Babita Kumari vs.The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti passed a 2-page long order dated May 4, 2026, wherein, concluded:"Till the next date of hearing, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No.58/2026 registered with Bharahi/Bharrahi Police Station, District Madhepura, Bihar, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 352 and 351(2) & (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer....6. However, we also make it clear that being the dispute between the mother-in-law on the one side and son and daughter-in-law on the other side, an attempt should be made to amicably resolve the matter." The matter will be called again on May 25, 2026. 

The Court observed: "2. Considering that the dispute is within the family where the complainant is the mother-in-law and the accused persons are son and daughter-in-law, we are inclined to consider the matter."

Prior to this in Navin Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Ansul of the Patna High Court had heard the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner who had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in Bharrahi P.S. Case. The petitioner no. 2 was Babita Devi @ Babita Kumari 2. The mother had alleged that the son had manipulated signatures of parties and had got the land registered in his wife’s name. In his order dated April 22, 2026, Justice Ansul had observed:"4. Considering such inhuman conduct of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected."

Supreme Court reverses Justice Sandeep Kumar's order denying regular bail because charge sheet filed, co-accused already granted bail in a cyber crime case

In Raja Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti passed an order dated April 30, 2026, wherein, it granted bail in a cyber crime case. It reversed the 2-page long order by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court. 

The petitioner is implicated in a case pursuant to Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 registered with Lakhisarai Cyber Thana under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology  Act, 2000. Section 318 (1) (2) (3) of BNS deals with the offence of  cheating. Its corresponding Section in IPC Section 415. 

Section 318 (1) BNS reads:"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." It cognizable, non-bailable and triable by Magistrate of the First Class.

Section 318 (4) of BNS deals with punishment for cheating. It reads:"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 

Section 319 (1) of BNS defines cheating by personation. It reads:"A person is said to cheat by personation if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Explanation.—The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person."

Section 319 (2) of BNS has provision for punishment for cheating. It reads:"Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both." The offence is cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. 

Section 66 C of the Information Technology Act deals with identity theft. It reads:"Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees.”

To establish guilt under Section 66C, the prosecution must prove fraudulent or dishonest intention while using another person’s credentials, use of electronic identity, such as password, signature, or biometric and absence of lawful authorization to use the said digital identity.

The offence attracts imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹1 lakh. Section 66D reads: "Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.–Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees." The offence is cognizable, bailable, and compoundable. 

Notably, Ritu Kohli case (Delhi Cyber Cell, 2001) is a landmark case of cyberstalking and identity theft. The accused misused the victim’s identity on a chat platform, leading to harassment. It directly established the applicability of Section 66C for digital impersonation. 

Supreme Court noted that the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and has filed the charge sheet on March 31, 2025. The petitioner was arrested on March 1, 2025 and is in jail since then. One of the co-accused ‘Deepak Kumar’ has already been granted bail in the matter. The trial has not commenced and there are five listed witnesses. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the Trial Court will take at least one year to complete the examination. 

Supreme Court concluded: "5. In the facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court commensurating with the charges, if any, framed against him including surrendering of his passport, if any, with the Trial Court itself."

In the High Court, the order dated January 9, 2026 by Justice Kumar heard the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by order dated May 6, 2025. The order noted that the petitioner, was in custody since March 1, 2025. He had sought regular bail in connection with the Cyber P.S. Case. As per the prosecution case, the Cyber Police Station on getting complaint of cyber fraud raided the place of occurrence from where the petitioner and others were apprehended. The Police had raided the place after tracing Mob.No. 9007683902. One mobile phone with dual sim has been recovered and from a bag in the room, three mobile were recovered from the petitioner, . From the place of occurrence, one Laptop and one copy was recovered and in the copy, many mobile numbers were written and cyber criminals were making calls on those mobile numbers.

Justice Kumar had concluded:"5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a cyber fraud who was caught by the Cyber Police who committed raid at the place of occurrence and recovered a number of incriminating articles, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.” 5. This Court finds no new ground to review its earlier order dated 06.05.2025. 6. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed." But Supreme Court felt persuaded to grat bail to the petitioner. 

Supreme Court reverses bail rejection order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a gold chain snatching case

In Mukesh Tiwari @ Mukesh Pandey vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V Viswanathan and N.K Singh passed a 3-page long order, wherein, it reversed the 2-page long order dated February 23, 2026 by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court. Supreme Court concluded: "6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the petitioner is in custody for 10 months in a case where the maximum sentence is 3 years, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the Trial Court may think fit to impose. 8. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms."

The Special Leave Petition questioned the correctness of the order of the High Court. The petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 202. Snatching is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence.

Section 304 (1) of BNS 2023 defines snatching as a distinct form of theft. For an act to qualify as “Snatching,” it must encompass all elements of theft, including dishonest intention, lack of consent, and the movement of the property. Section 304 (2) provides that “whoever commits snatching, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine”.

If the offence is penalized under Section 304(2) according to Section 283(2) of the BNSS, the magistrate may choose to hold a summary trial. The offence has been made triable by any magistrate. 

FIR registration under Sections 173 of BNSS, the procedure begins when the complainant goes to the police station to file an FIR under Section 173. Property seizure under Sections 106-107: During the investigation, the police may seize any property associated with the crime vide Section 106. It also requires the seized property to be presented to the Magistrate. Section 107 (7), (8) lays down the procedure for the attachment, forfeiture or restoration of such property to the victim. Investigation (Sections 173-196): A new provision in BNSS has been added vide Section 173(3) wherein on receipt of information relating to a cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of the police station may with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (i) Conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within 14 days, or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case. The procedure for investigation is given under Section 176. 

There is provision for charge Sheet under Section 193. If there is adequate evidence following an inquiry, a charge sheet is submitted under Section 193. Framing of Charges under Section 251): Section 251 provides the framework for the start of the trial. BNSS states that charges must be framed within 60 days of the initial charge hearing. Trial under Sections 248-260: The witnesses are examined, cross-examined, and re-examined as the trial moves along. Under Section 248, the Public Prosecutor will lead the trial. 

Under Section 249, prosecution will begin. Under Section 250, there is provision for discharge. Under Section 251, there is a provision for framing of charges. Under Section 252,there is a provision for plea of guilty and conviction. Under Section 253, the date of the prosecution's evidence is fixed. Under Section 254, there is provision for prosecution-related evidence. Section 255 has provision for acquittal. Sections 258-260 has provisions for judgment. The court renders a decision based on the evidence that was put out in the trial. 

Snatching is one of the new offences that has been introduced in the BNS, one of the three new criminal laws. The rising incidents of chain snatching, and mobile phone snatching, which contain sensitive data, financial information, and passwords necessitated the addition of a section to punish the same. Theft is considered “snatching” if, with the intent to commit theft, the offender suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizes, secures, grabs, or takes away any movable property from any person or their possession. Theft was formerly specified under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), however, snatching was not specifically listed as a distinct crime. 

In the High Court, Justice Kumar's order noted that it was the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 304 of the BNS. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated September 17, 2025. The second bail application was preferred by the petitioner within six months of its earlier rejection. The High Court had observed:" 4. In the opinion of this Court, this application is premature as successive bail applications cannot be entertained by this Court within few months of earlier rejection. 5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Patna High Court, Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today." 

On the earlier occasion, Justice Kumar's order had recorded that as per the prosecution case, unknown criminals were found involved in snatching the gold chain from the neck of the wife of the informant. The motorcycle of the snatchers was recovered from the place of the occurrence which belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since June 12, 2025 and had two criminal antecedents. His earlier, order had concluded:"5. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected."

Unlike Justice Kumar, Supreme Court's Division Bench was persuaded by the submission of the counsel for the petitioner to grant bail. It was submitted that the petitioner had already undergone 10 months imprisonment and that the maximum punishment is 3 years. The offence was also a Magistrate triable offence. 

Supreme Court set aside order by Justice Rajiv Roy, grants anticipatory bail

In  Maksud Alam & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh And Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed a 5-page long order dated April 24, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....the impugned order stands set aside and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly. The appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 5th May, 2026 at 11.00 a.m. If they do not appear on the said day, anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by this Court shall stand cancelled automatically."

The impugned order refers to the 3-page long order dated January 15, 2026 by Justice Rajiv Roy of the Patna High Court.  

The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with Amnour P.S. Case No. 220 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged by the informant Ankita Raj. The informant had alleged that after treatment of her child, as they were returning on their vehicle, the wedding procession of Siraj Ansari was going on. As they have blocked the road, request was made whereafter the accused side armed variously assaulted causing injuries. The husband and the informant was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Garkha, Saran at Chapra and the allegation is that thereafter Ehsan Ali threatened the informant and others with dire consequences after their release on bail. This led to the F.I.R.

The counsel for the petitioner had taken Justice Royto Court to an order passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in Najrul Miyan and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar disposed of on December 24, 2025 to show that similar situated persons were extended relief. 

Supreme Court observed: "The antecedent in which the appellants are allegedly involved, pertain to an occurrence in respect of which a complaint was also given on behalf of the appellants. The appellants have, in fact, joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required." It has reversed the order by Justice Roy. 

Patna High Court Advocates demand immediate implementation of Women's Reservation Act, express dismay at the post dated cheque

The advocates of Patna High Court organized a talk on the subject of In Defense of Women's Reservation Act on April 23, 2026. The subject was introduced by Y. C. Verma, senior advocate and the newly elected President of Advocates Association. He underlined that the woman's reservation act was guided by the quest for political justice. 

 

While concluding the talk on the subject of the Constitution (106th Amendment Act, 2003 which entered  into force on April 16, 2026, Dr. Gopal Krishna, advocate pointed out that they who do not have sense of beauty cannot have sense of justice. The supporters of immediate implementation of Women's Reservation Act have a sense beauty which inspires their sense of justice. The million dollar question is: Did the male MPs who voted  for the bill do so only because they were assured that their seats would not be allocated to women? Why should women's seats be additional seats? What made male MPs confident about their re-election?  

The advocates who spoke on the occasion included Ayushi Chaudhary, Nupur, Isha Ann and Kumari Akanksha Rai. Chaudhary underlined that Bihar’s experience of electing more than 50 per cent of women to Panchayats in the state is creating a strong base of women leaders over multiple election cycles. These advocates argued that what is being promised in the name of woman's reservation was akin to promising 33 % share in mangoes once there are 85 mangoes on the tree. Women are demanding share in the existing mangoes.Tying women’s reservation to legislature expansion defies sane logic. (Photo:Dr, Gopal Krishna, Ayushi Chaudhary)  

Expressing his support for the enactment of the Constitution (106th) Amendment Act, 2023, Dr. Krishna contended that Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam should be implemented in right earnest. In 2023, the Parliament had passed the law unanimously to foster equitable representation of women in public life. This landmark legislation rotationally reserves one-third of all seats for women in the Lok Sabha and in all State Legislative Assemblies, including the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam notification was issued to implement old laws that were not implemented earlier. Noted journalists/advocates like Arvind Ujjwal, Mukesh Kumar Singh, and advocates like Shagufta Rashid, Priya Kumari, Arvind Singh, Najmal Hoda, Vishwas Kumar, Sanjana, Ugresh Kumar, Rahamatullah, Rashmi, Rajesh Kumar, and Suman Kumari graced the occasion. (Photo:Advocates Manju Sharma, Ayushi Chaudhary, Isha Ann, Kumari Akanksha Rai, Y.C. Verma (in the middle),  Dr. Gopal Krishna, Dr. Rajaram Rai, Amit Maharaj, Ram Jiban Prasad Singh, Dr. S.S.Yadav, Jnana Chandra Bhardwaj and Neeraj Kumar) 

The speakers noted that on April 17, 2026, the Lok Sabha rejected the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026. Consequently, the government withdrew the Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which were dependent on the amendment. The failed amendment aimed to increase Lok Sabha seats to 850, linking 33% women's reservation to 2011 census-based delimitation. Notably, the Constitution (131st Amendment)Bill, 2026 failed to pass after receiving only 278 votes in favor (failing to secure the required two-thirds majority). The Delimitation Bill, 2026 was withdrawn following the failure of the 131st Amendment Bill. The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 too was withdrawn following the failure of the 131st Amendment Bill. Isha reminded, that before its enactment in 2023, Women's Reservation Bill was introduced in the parliament in 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2008. 

(Photo:Advocates Manju Sharma, Kumari Akanksha Rai, Y.C. Verma, Ayushi Chaudhary, Dr. Gopal Krishna and Arvind Ujjwal and Isha Ann) 

The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 had proposed increasing the maximum total strength of the Lok Sabha to 850 members (815 from states, 35 from Union Territories), expanding it from the current 550. The bill aimed to facilitate delimitation based on the 2011 Census to implement 33% women's reservation, but failed to pass. Advocate Bhardwaj shared a note saying, "Women have been facing denial of rights for long because of the patriarchal mindset." 

 

In her, speech Advocate Nupur underlined that the introduction of Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, was a constitutional proposition, not a political event.  Disregarding constitutional reasoning, if we endorse the wrong means for reaching the right end, we set a precedent that will outlast any single legislative defeat. When a single amendment seeks to simultaneously expand the Parliament, redraw state boundaries, remove the delimitation freeze, and operationalise a reservation —all in one stroke—it raises a legitimate question: does such an omnibus amendment respect the constitutional discipline that the Basic Structure doctrine imposes? Or does it attempt, under the cover of a morally compelling objective, to reorganise the foundations of our federal democracy? The use of 2011 Census data - data that was already fifteen years old at the time - as the demographic basis for this restructuring compounds the concern. A delimitation exercise built on stale data does not merely risk inaccuracy. It creates a constitutional structure whose legitimacy may be challenged in courts for years, delaying rather than advancing the very women's representation it seeks to ensure." 

Subsequent to the amendment of the 2023, the new Article 330A of the Constitution reads: "Reservation of seats for women in the House of the People. “330A. (1) Seats shall be reserved for women in the House of the People. (2) As nearly as may be, one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (2) of article 330 shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. (3) As nearly as may be, one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election to the House of the People shall be reserved for women.”.   

In her presentation, Advocate Nupur also pointed out that "The 2023 act ties its operationalisation to the completion of a Census and subsequent delimitation.....But the more important question, as lawyers, is whether there is a constitutional basis for demanding immediate implementation without waiting for the Census, and whether the current government can be compelled to move with urgency on the preconditions. First, the Census obligation is not optional. The last decennial Census was due in 2021. It remains unconducted in 2026. This is not a constitutional inevitability—it is an administrative failure. Second, connecting the bill with Second, the delimitation process is an independent constitutional function. The Delimitation Commission operates under Article 82 (for Lok Sabha) and Article 170 (for State Assemblies). It is not dependent on executive will alone—it requires a statutory notification and the Commission's independent exercise of power. The government cannot indefinitely delay reconstituting a Delimitation Commission without being constitutionally accountable for that delay. Third, the constitutional right created by the 2023 Act creates a correlative duty. When the Constitution provides that women shall be reserved one-third of seats, it does not grant the executive a discretionary timeline for compliance. The word 'shall' in constitutional provisions is obligatory. While the trigger for operationalisation is tied to delimitation, the obligation to create the conditions for delimitation—conducting the Census—is itself constitutionally compelled. Any further administrative delay beyond what is reasonably necessary is legally challengeable." 

Tracing the history of the demand for women's rights in the writings of Mary Wollstonecraft, Dr. Krishna drew the attention of the advocates towards what she wrote in her A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) after writing A Vindication of the Rights of Men, in a Letter to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, occaisioned by his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). She demanded equality based on natural reason because denying equality to women is indefensible. She wrote:"we shall not see women affectionate till more equality be established in society, till ranks are confounded and women freed, neither shall we see that dignified domestic happiness, the simple grandeur of which cannot be relished by ignorant or vitiated minds; nor will the important task of education ever be properly begun till the person of a woman is no longer preferred to her mind. For it would be as wise to expect corn from tares, or figs from thistles, as that a foolish ignorant woman should be a good mother." The ruling parties were pushing for delimitation without the 2027 Census results, on the grounds that it will enable implementation of the 2023 Nari Vandan Adhiniyam Act by or before the 2029 general election, delaying implementation to 2034 given the fact that the 2027 Census results will released during 2028-2030. Women’s reservation is independent of legislature expansion or Census results. The purpose of a delimitation commission is to allocate one-third of total seats to women. But it can be implemented in the current strength of Lok and Vidhan Sabhas.The enactment of the law was long due but as of now the law exists as a post dated cheque, which is indefensible. 

Now that the brief parliament session is over all sane citizens should ensure that women’s reservation is delinked from legislature expansion. 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court re-affirms interim relief to petitioners in a case from Benibad, Muzaffarpur

In Jitendra Kumar Rai & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 3-page long order dated April 20, 2026, wherein, it allowed the exemption applications. The Court observed:"8. It is very unfortunate that the FIR of 2024 is still under investigation. 9. Post this matter after two weeks. 10. On the next date of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the State shall inform us how well the petitioners have cooperated in the investigation. 11. Interim order earlier granted to continue." 

On February 10, 2026, the Court had passed the following order: “Delay condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was some dispute between the neighbours in which both sides sustained injuries. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 20.04.2026. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Advocate-on-Record accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer in connection with FIR bearing Case No. 66 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 registered at Police Station Benibad, District Muzaffarpur. Needless to add that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation.”

The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they were not called by the investigating officer. She submitted that they are ready and willing to appear before the investigating officer on any day as may be directed for the purpose of recording of their statements and interrogation.

The Court's order reads: "6. We direct the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 23rd April, 2026 without fail. 7. On that date, the investigating officer shall record the statements and interrogate the petitioners."The counsel appearing for the State had submitted that "the petitioners have not appeared before the investigating officer for the purpose of their interrogation."   

The case arose out of a 4-page long order dated September 1, 2025 in Phulo Devi & Ors.vs. The State of Bihar (2025) passed by Justice Rajiv Roy of the Patna High Court. The other petitioners were: Jitendra Rai and Kamod Kumar. In the High Court, the counsel for the petitioners were: Late Vaishnavi Singh and Late Ritwik Thakur. 

As per the prosecution story, the informant on September 9, 2024, when the sister-in-law, Shama Devi was out to attend nature’s call, the accused persons intercepted and made comments. As she raised alarm, subsequently informed the family members, allegation is that the accused persons armed variously came and after abuse, the assault. Jitendra Rai and Kamod Kumar assaulted with farsa and rod causing injury on the head and the right hand. Phulo Rai and Ranjeet Kumar assaulted Mithilesh Rai with iron rod on the head while Phulo Devi assaulted the mother of the informant causing injury on the back. Phulo Devi also assaulted his mother. Besides this, there was allegation of taking away the amount, they resorted to dial 112 whereafter they were shifted to SKMCH, Muzaffarpur for treatment. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was case and counter case, both being side by side, the accused side had also suffered and subsequent statement before the police during the investigation was of omnibus in nature save and except Jitendra Rai. The petitioners had no criminal antecedent.

Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma in a dowry death case

In Lal Muni Devi vs. The State  of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 12-page long order dated March 25, 2026 wherein, it set aside a 4-page long order dated January 16, 2026 by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court. Supreme Court concluded: "12. The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is wholly unsustainable. In a very serious crime like dowry death, the High Court should have been very careful in exercising its discretion. The High Court in its impugned Order has not discussed anything. All that weighed with the High Court was that the accused was in judicial custody and only two witnesses had been examined till the date the High Court passed the impugned order. 13. The High Court lost sight of many important aspects of the matter, more particularly the post-mortem report indicating number of injuries on the body of the deceased, and the presumption of commission of offence as provided under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023." 

In Vikash Kumar vs. The State of Bihar  Cr. Misc. No. 80290 of 2025, in his order dated January 16, 2026, Justice Verma had concluded: "....let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patna in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024", subject to certain specified conditions given the fact that the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future and the petitioner was in custody since September 2, 2024.  

Prior to this in a 2-page long order dated May 16, 2025 in Vikash Kumar vs. The State of Bihar  Cr. Misc. No. 24229 of 2025, Justice Verma had concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna." Supreme Court appeared startled by change of the order within seven months. 

Notably, Justice Verma had recorded the submission of counsel for the Informant as well as APP for the State that the petitioner had committed the murder of the deceased and she has been died within one and half years of the marriage and witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.   

This appeal against the order by Justice Verma had reached the Supreme Court at the instance of the original complainant (mother of the deceased), seeking to challenge the legality and validity of the Order passed by the High Court dated January 16, 2026, releasing the Respondent No.2 - original accused (husband of the deceased), on bail in connection with the First Information Report dated September 1, 2024 registered with the Gopalpur Police station, State of Bihar for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. respectively. It appeared from the materials on record that the deceased was married to the accused past 1½ years. On September 1, 2024, the deceased was found dead at her matrimonial home in suspicious circumstances with external and internal injuries all over her body. The mother of the deceased lodged an FIR on the very same day and date. 

Supreme Court's order reads: "18. We are informed that the trial is in progress. On this ground alone, the High Court should have declined bail. 19. We are of the view that the impugned Order deserves to be set aside. The bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled and the Respondent No.2 - accused should be directed to surrender before the jail authorities. We order accordingly. 20. We clarify that our present observations are limited to deciding whether the bail granted by the High Court is liable to be cancelled. The trial court shall proceed on its own assessment of evidence uninfluenced by any of the remarks made herein. 21. The Trial Court shall see to it that the trial is completed within six months from today. 22. We grant one week’s time to the Respondent No.2 to surrender before the jail authority, failing which the trial court shall issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest. 23. The appeal stands disposed of. 24. There is a connected petition filed by the State seeking the very same relief of cancellation of bail. 25. In view of the order passed in the petition filed by the de-facto complainant, we need not pass a separate order in the petition filed by the State. 26. The same is disposed of accordingly. 27. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 28. The Registry shall forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Patna who shall in turn place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna."

Supreme Court grants pre-arrest bail to Gyanti Devi from Jahanabad

In Janti Devi @ Buchiya Devi @Gyanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2026),  Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi granted pre-arrest bail to the appellant by its 6-page long order dated March 19, 2026. The appellant was a woman aged 42-43 years, who had filed the appeal seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR dated March 15, 2025 registered at Police Station Jahanabad Thana, Jahanabad, Bihar under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 

The counsel for the appellant submitted that there are no allegations against her. Her entire family was involved in the case. Two minor sons were already granted bail being juvenile. The husband of the appellant is still in custody.

The Court observed:"5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that entire family had been involved in the case, the appellant is a woman aged 42-43 and her husband is already in custody, in our opinion, she deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail."

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra

In Amarjit Yadav @ Amarjit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated February 20, 2026. The order reads: "....we do not find any good ground to deny the prayer sought for by the appellant. Hence, appeal is allowed and appellant is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer...." It reversed the 3-page long order dated June 27, 2025 by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of the Patna High Court. The appellant had approached the Supreme Court apprehending his arrest in the FIR registered on May 13, 2025 under Sections 30(a), 32(c) and 41(1)(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 after denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court. 

The gist of the prosecution case is that appellant was a prospective purchaser of 260.250 liters of Indian made Foreign Liquor, which was being transported in a truck from Haryana to Bihar and the driver of the truck Sunil Paswan in his statement had disclosed the name of appellant as the potential buyer.

The Court observed: "It is an admitted fact that the contraband has not been seized from the possession of appellant and it is based on the co-accused statement, the appellant has been roped in as an accused. The courts-below had rejected the prayer of the appellant on the ground of his criminal antecedents, however none of the offences alleged are under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. Be that as it may, pursuant to our interim order, appellant has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has cooperated with the investigation which is also fairly admitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent."

Before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner had no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. He also submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither owner nor driver of the truck in question. Name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused person as the petitioner was receiver of the seized items and the same has got no evidentiary value. He submitted that similarly situated co-accused was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated April 2, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19754 of 2025. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In his order Justice Mishra had concluded: "6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order." 

 

Supreme Court reverses Justice Sandeep Kumar's bail denying order

In Amit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 7-page long order dated February 13, 2026 reversing the order dated October 17, 2025 by Justices Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court. The appellant had approached the Supreme Court against order of rejection of regular bail by the High Court and to seek bail. Justices Maheshwari and Chandurkar concluded:"....we direct to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing the suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court." 

Supreme Court noted that "....the maximum sentence as prescribed for the offence is up to three years and the petitioner has already served about eight months, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court for regular bail in connection with a P.S. Case of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 304(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of chain snatching. The face of the petitioner was captured in the CCTV footage and the informant had identified the petitioner as one of the accused. The petitioner was in custody since April 5, 2025 and had 13 criminal antecedents. 

Justice Kumar had observed: "5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected."