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."

Justice Soni Shrivastava quahes FIR bearing Pirbahor P.S. Case No.639 of 2024 by Madhuri Devi, resident of Gaya

In Ritambhara Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Soni Shrivastava delivered a 4-page long judgement dated August 21, 2026, wherein, she concluded:"this Court is of the considered view that no offence against the present petitioner is made out from the impugned FIR and continuance of any proceedings against a law professional made by some professional litigants would only amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and if such frivolous litigations are not quashed, the same would also set bad precedents. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion and also considering the fact that the present case falls within the ambit of category (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, Pirbahor P.S. Case No.639 of 2024 and any prosecution therefrom, so far as it relates to the petitioner, stands quashed." 

Although notice was issued to Madhuri Devi, the opposite party no.2 who is a resident of South Lakhibag
near Gauri Kanya Vidyalaya Manpur thana- Muffasil, which was accepted as validly served, she chose not to appear in the proceedings before the High Court.By way of filing the application, the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Pirbahor P.S. Case No.639 of 2024 dated September 21, 2024 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that are that the petitioner has abused, assaulted and pressurized the informant to withdraw the case (S.T.R. No.72 of 2020). It was also alleged that the petitioner was threatened to face dire consequences if the said case was not withdrawn.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted at the outset that the petitioner is an advocate by profession and the FIR is out and out a case of malicious prosecution on account of the fact that this petitioner happens to be the advocate of adversary of the informant. It was also submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report itself, on the face of the record, do not make out any criminal case against the petitioner, much less the ones under which it has been alleged.  

The Court's attention was drawn to an FIR which was lodged by the petitioner on the same date, which was in the form of a complaint before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patna Sadar, disclosing allegations against the present informant who intercepted her while she was going to her seat in the Civil Court and threatened her of dire consequences. It was contended that the informant is a professional litigant which manifests from a number of cases, eight of which have been enumerated therein which has been lodged against different accused persons. On account of such grounds as advanced and especially in view of the case and counter case, the counsel for the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the FIR and any prosecution arising therefrom as against the petitioner, who is an advocate by profession.

Justice Shrivastava observed: "8. I have perused the entire materials on record and especially impugned FIR, upon perusal of which, I find that the allegations are totally vague and do not make out any case against the present petitioner. The narration of facts in the FIR read in juxtaposition with the FIR lodged by the present petitioner is also reflective of the fact that the present case is a malicious prosecution filed against the present petitioner only on account of the fact that she happened to be the counsel of the adversary of the opposite party no.2."

Supreme Court sets aside bail denial order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra in a case of kidnapping, abduction for marriage from Shivrajpur, Nautan, West Champaran

In Ranjit Patel vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi passed 6-page long order dated August 20, 2026, wherein, it set aside the  order dated March 13, 20266 passed by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court. Te Supreme Court concluded:"Having regard to the above, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage, pending trial. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 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 on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The submission on behalf of the appellant was that statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is exculpatory in nature and indicates that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was based on consent. Further, though the allegation is that victim is minor, her Aadhar Card entry reflects that she is an adult. Even otherwise, the age certificate which has been relied upon by the prosecution would reveal that she is well above 17 years. In such circumstances, it is submitted, whether the victim is of the age of consent or not would be determined in trial and, therefore, the appellant who has no previous criminal antecedents is entitled to be released on bail. The counsel for the respondent could not dispute that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had disclosed a relationship based on consent. 

Earlier, in Ranjit Patel vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order dated March 13, 2026, wherein, he had concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial."

The petitioner had approached the High Court for bail in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 340 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sections 137(2), 87, and 3(5) outline criminal charges related to kidnapping, abduction, and joint liability for acts done with a common intention. 

The prosecution case is that the petitioner kidnapped informant’s minor daughter with an intention to marry her. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. He also submitted that there was love affair in between the petitioner and the victim. It was submitted that she went with the petitioner on her own will and solemnized marriage with him in Nepal. It was also submitted that the medical report of the victim does not support the prosecution case. The petitioner is in custody since July 14, 2025 and has got no criminal antecedent. The APP for the State and the counsel for the informant had opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It was submitted that the victim is a minor girl and there is specific allegation against the petitioner of enticing away the victim for the purpose of marriage. Hence,
the petitioner did not deserve the privilege of bail. 

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? 

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.

Supreme Court stays order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a family dispute case

In Chandramohan Kumar & Anr. vs. 1. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 2-page long order dated June 16, 2026. The order reads: "4. The condition imposed by the impugned order is stayed until further orders, subject to the petitioner depositing or paying Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today towards legal expenses for the present case." The respondent no. 2 is Aarti Kumari. Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed the 3-page long impugned order dated February 17, 2026.  

Earlier, Justice Kumar had concluded; "6. Considering the submission of the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, this application of grant of anticipatory bail is allowed." He added: "7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the concerned Court below within four weeks from today, 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st class, East Muzaffarpur/ concerned court below in connection with Minapur Case No. 117 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 482 of the BNSS. 8. As a condition of this order, the petitioner is directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- from the month of February, 2026 to the informant and the maintenance for the month of February, 2026 shall be paid to the informant within one week from the date of pronouncement of this order and thereafter, the maintenance amount shall be paid to the informant every month before the 10th day of the month." 

Justice Kumar made it clear that the order of maintenance passed by the High Court shall be subject to the outcome of maintenance case of the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court concerned, if any.

The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with Minapur P.S Case No.117 of 2025 registered for the offence under sections 126(2),115 (2), 109, 85, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners were husband and devar of the informant. It was alleged that the petitioners and other family members started demanding Rs, 3 lakh and one motorycle. The counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners were innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. There was no specific allegation against the petitioners. The petitioners have got clean antecedent. 

  

Supreme Court reverses order by Justice Rajiv Roy who had declined extension of bail for non-disclosure of criminal antecedant at the outset

In Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed an order dated May 21, 2026, wherein, it condoned the delay. The order noted:"....it is seen that first modification application was filed to indicate that he has criminal antecedents. 2 . Thereafter another application was filed for extension of period to furnish the bail bonds in the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36600 of 2025. The High Court in first application only took the fact on record but not granted extension, however, the subsequent application was rejected." Supreme Court concluded: "In our view, after grant of the bail, the High Court may have granted extension after taking the fact of antecedents on record. 3. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this special leave petition with a direction that in furtherance to the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail, the bail bonds be furnished now within two weeks from today." 

Prior to this, in Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2026) Criminal  Miscellaneous  No. 24937 of 2026, Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order dated April 10, 2026. The order reads:"2 . The petitioner was granted relief on 16.09.2025. However, he could not surrender as in the petition it was recorded that he has no criminal antecedent whereas the petitioner was having criminal antecedent. In that background, the earlier modification petition (Cr. Misc. No. 954 of 2026) was rejected on 30.01.2026. 3. Once again, a fresh modification petition has been filed with following prayer:“for extension of time in the order dated 16.09.2025 vide Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025.” 4. It is again rejected in view of the earlier rejection dated 30.01.2026 with a cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee."

Justice Roy's earlier order dated January 30, 2026 reads: "2. The present application has been preferred for
modification in Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025 vide an order dated 16.09.2025, the order contains the statement of having no criminal antecedent in paragraph nos. 5 and 7 which is a factual error committed due to our hearing negligence. 3. On 16.09.2025, the Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025 (Ritesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar) was allowed and grounds amongst other was that main allegation is against Saurabh, the petitioner has been shown to be friend and he do not have criminal antecedent. 4. By filing the modification petition, the petitioner now wants correction in paragraph 5 and 7 of the said order and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has criminal antecedent. 5. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh submits that paragraph 3 of the main petition shows that the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, as recorded, no relief can be granted. 7. The Cr. Misc. No. 954 of 2026 is dismissed." 

Earlier, in Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2025) Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.36600 of 2025, Patna High Court's Justice Rajiv Roy passed a 3-page long order dated September 16, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"7. The allegation is there, it is mainly against Saurabh, the petitioner has been shown to be the friend, the girl has not stated anything about the sexual assault on her, he is only twenty years of age having no criminal antecedent, FIR is there and he shall be facing the music, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions. 8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge VII-cum-Spl. Court (POCSO), Purnia in connection with Raghuvansh Nagar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in connection with a Raghuvansh Nagar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 for the offence under sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on March 13, 2025 by the informant, Raj Kishore Kumar Dinkar. Earlier, by his order dated June 5, 2025, Justice Partha Sarthy had called for legible photocopy of the case diary and statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS in connection with Raghuvansh Nagar P.S Case no.19 of 2025 from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Court  (POCSO), Purnea.

As per the prosecution story, the informant had alleged that while his minor daughter was going to coaching center, the named accused persons including the petitioner took her away for marriage purposes. This led to the FIR. As the story unfolds, the victim girl returned and supported the allegation made in the FIR. The petitioner's senior counsel submitted that allegation was that one Saurabh Kumar wanted to marry the girl and only to implicate, his friends were named. The petition was a student having no criminal antecedent and is only twenty years of age. Asha Kumari, the APP had opposed the prayer submitting that the petitioner was also named by the informant as also the girl upon return.

Supreme Court reverses denial of reguar bail order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a POCSO case

In Madhav @ Madho Kumar vs. 1. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed 3-page long order dated May 13, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and considering the delay in lodging the FIR and as alleged, the story of political rivalry has been contemplated, in addition, taking note of the fact that the medical evidence do not corroborate with the allegation, at present, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. 3. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be released 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. 4. Petitioner to abide all the conditions as imposed and shall regularly attend the trial until exempted by the Court. Violation, if any, may give a cause to take recourse as permissible and the trial Court is at liberty to do the needful."

The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court to seek bail against an order rejecting the regular bail by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court. The petitioner is in custody w.e.f. March 30, 2025 in connection with a FIR dated March 29, 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) registered with Police Station Paharpur, District Motihari, Bihar. Prior to this Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey had called for case diary along with the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS from the Court of 6th District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, East Champaran, Motihari by his order dated September 3, 2025.

Earlier, Justice Kumar had passed a 2-page long order dated October 15, 2025. The application for grant of regular bail, wherein, the petitioner was accused of committing rape with a minor girl. The counsel for the informant had submitted that the trial had started and in the trial the informant and the victim had already been examined and they had supported the prosecution case. Justice Kumar had concluded: "5. Considering the aforesaid facts and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X
vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Accordingly, this bail application is rejected." Supreme Court has reversed this order. 

Supreme Court reverses conditional pre-arrest bail order by Justice Purnendu Singh in a rape case, vindicates bail order by Justice Satyavrat Verma

In Ghutuk Miyan @ Ismail Miyan vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 3-page order dated May 13, 2026, wherein, it reversed the conditional order dated April 28, 2026 by Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court. It issued notice and concluded: "By way of an ad interim order, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail in connection with P.S. Case No. 192 of 2025 registered SLP (Crl.) No(s). 8811/2026  at Police Station Gopalpur, District West Champaran, Bihar...." The respondent no. 2 from village, Mahesda, Gopalpur, West Champaranis is not named because it is a rape case. The Court's order vindicates the order dated March 12, 2026 by Justice Satyavrat Verma. 

Earlier, Justice Singh had passed an order wherein, he had observed:"7. Having heard the rival  submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, from the manner in which the entire story has been narrated, it appears to be shaky to the extent that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has rightly submitted that no one can carry a female in his lap without her desire. No force was applied by the informant, however, the informant has supported the allegation made in the FIR, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the same is also supported by the 11 years old child in his statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS before the Investigating Officer." 

The order reads: "8. In such circumstances, I direct the learned District Court to first get the statement of the 11 years old child of the informant recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS by a child friendly Court and if the learned District Court finds that the 11 years old child of the informant has not supported the allegation as alleged in the FIR, then in that case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is pending, in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 9. If the child supports the allegations made in the FIR, in his statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, then in that case, the petitioner is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. 10. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS. According to the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner had allegedly committed rape upon the informant while her husband was not present in the house. The rape was allegedly committed in presence of her 11 years old son. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the manner in which the allegation was narrated, itself makes the allegation of commission of rape doubtful as it is the case of the informant that she was taken into lap and, thereafter, without having resisted to the same act of the petitioner, she was taken to another room where the rape was committed in presence of her 11 years old son, who supported the prosecution case along with the victim, who was the informant of the case. She also submitted that the victim was examined by the doctor and the doctor opined that there was no trace of any recent sexual assault having been committed. She submitted that Rs 70, 000 of the petitioner was due with the informant and in order to avoid payment of the same, the informant lodged the FIR. She had also submitted that on these grounds, co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had granted interim relief to the petitioner and, as such, in absence of any evidence, the petitioner deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, referred to the impugned order of the District Court, submitted that enough evidences have been collected in course of investigation and the petitioner having taken advantage of the absence of the husband of the informant, had committed rape, which was in presence of her 11 years old son and the statement of her son was also recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS before the Investigating Officer, in which, he supported the prosecution story. He also  submitted that it was not a case of tutoring of the 11 years old child, who is innocent and his version is required to be given emphasis, particularly, in case where rape is committed. He submitted that the petitioner had not taken any plea that the child was tutored and narrated a false story under Section 180 of the BNSS before the Investigating Officer. He also submitted that evidence was there, which suggested that the petitioner had committed rape upon the victim, who is the informant. He had vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Prior to this Justice Satyavrat Verma had passed an order dated March 12, 2026. The case arose from a Gopalpur P.S. Case of 2025 from the Court of Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned Exclusive Special Judge Rape and POCSO Act, Bettiah, West Champaran. The order reads: "4. There shall be no coercive action against the petitioner until the anticipatory bail application is finally adjudicated by this Court, as it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner and the informant were in a consensual relationship and when the child of the informant woke up, the petitioner fled and thereafter the instant FIR came to be instituted after a delay of six days. It is also submitted that the informant in the FIR alleges that after making her children sleep, she also went to sleep without locking the door and petitioner taking advantage of the same entered the house and came to her room, lifted her in his arms and brought her in another room and on the point of knife threatened and raped her. It is submitted that it does not appear probable that petitioner would have been knowing that the door was unlocked on the date of occurrence, this fact also creates a suspicion that petitioner and the informant were in a consensual relationship."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court takes note of allegations "against some of the police officers of trying to coerce the petitioner" in a matrimonial case from Naugachhiya, Bhagalpur

In Amit Kumar Hari @ Amit Kumar Abhimanyu vs. The State of Bihar Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan passed a 3-page long order dated February 26, 2026, wherein, it observed:".....we notice that certain allegations have been made against some of the police officers of trying to coerce the petitioner even after the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by this Court extending the interim protection granted by the High Court to the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner has filed a complaint bearing M.P. No.264 of 2026 against those police officers before the learned CJM, Purnia. We further note that the said Court has also issued notice in the said petition. The said Court has also asked for a report from the concerned police, which is awaited. 4. Be that as it may, let the concerned Superintendent of Police applied with the aforesaid order of the learned CJM, Purnia without any delay. Thereafter, the learned CJM, Purnia shall take a call in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-State of Bihar shall communicate the present order to the Trial Court. 6. A copy of this order be also sent to the learned CJM, Purnia." The Respondent no. 2 is Palak Kumari @ Pallawi Kumari. 

Prior to this order, the Supreme Court had passed an order dated November 25, 2025, when the parties were sent to mediation initially, there was lack of cooperation on the side of the petitioner. However, later on, he did participate, but the mediation ultimately failed. The Court went into the merits of the matter. The Court found that no case for anticipatory bail was made out. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. The order of the Court dated November 25, 2025 for continuation of the interim protection granted to the petitioner by the High Court vide the impugned order dated September 24, 2025 stands vacated. 

The case arose out of impugned final 4-page long order dated September 24, 2025 passed by Justice Purnendu Singh of the Patna High Court. The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in connection with Naugachhiya P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025 registered under Sections 85,115(2),126(2),352,3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3,4 of the DP Act. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner along with other family members had assaulted the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 

Justice Singh had recorded and observed that "the parties have failed to settle the matrimonial dispute, the Court till last minute must strive to give opportunity to the parties to settle the dispute between the husband and wife amicably. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence against society. However, a false case can have a disastrous consequence in absence of any criminal content. The personal dispute cannot call for a criminal offence. Continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law leading to vexatious proceeding against the petitioner."

Justice Singh drew on Supreme Court's decision in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 wherein it held as under:-
“ 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.

Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma because of committing "an egregious error" in exercising his discretion in favour of murder accused persons by granting anticipatory bail

In Ramakant Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan passed an order dated February 11,  2026, wherein, it set aside the impugned order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court. The accused persons i.e. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, Omprakash Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Singh @Aman Kumar @Aman Singh respectively were ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of one week from February 11, 2026.

Supreme Court' s Division Bench observed: "17. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court committed an egregious error exercising its discretion in favour of the accused persons by granting them anticipatory bail. 18. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. 19. The impugned Order passed by the High Court is set aside....21. Once they surrender before the Trial Court, they shall be remanded to judicial custody. It will be open for both the accused persons to thereafter pray for regular bail. 22. We are informed that the investigation is over and charge- sheet has been filed. 23. The regular bail application that may be filed by the accused persons shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law, having regard to the materials in the charge-sheet. 24. It is needless to clarify that the regular bail application shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observation made by us in the present order. We have said in so many words that the principles governing grant of anticipatory bail differ to a considerable extent from the principles governing grant of regular bail. This shall be kept in mind by the concerned Court while considering the regular bail application of the accused persons."

This appeal arose  from the order passed by the High Court dated July 30, 2025 in the anticipatory bail application. It was preferred by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection with Bishanpur Police Station Case No.14 of 2025 registered on 27-1-2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita respectively. Later, in point of time as the injured succumbed to the injuries, Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added.

The appellant before the Supreme Court was the son of the deceased. He also happened to be the original informant. The First Information Report lodged by the appellant with the Police Station in Darbhanga on January 27, 2025. 

In all six persons were named as accused in the FIR inclusive of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively before us. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 apprehending arrest prayed for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court declined to grant them anticipatory bail.

In such circumstances, they went before the High Court. The High Court accepted their plea and granted them anticipatory bail. The High Court while granting anticipatory bail had observed in para 6 as under:-

“6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no specific allegation of assault against these petitioners and specific allegation of assault is against co-accused person, namely, Ratneshwar Singh and there is case and counter case between the parties and there is also land dispute between the parties for which one Title Suit is pending between the parties, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-

i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.”

The appellant, being the son of the deceased, was before the Supreme Court with the appeal being aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail to the two accused persons i.e. the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively before us. 

Supreme Court's Division Between underlined that "11. The High Court should have been mindful of the fact that the accused persons are alleged to have been involved in a serious crime like murder. We do not say for a moment that in connection with an offence of murder, Court should not grant anticipatory bail”. But, it observed: "....the principles governing grant of anticipatory bail are quite different compared to the principles governing grant of regular bail. 13. Anticipatory bail may be granted by the Court even in a case of murder provided the Court is convinced that the accused persons praying for anticipatory bail have been falsely implicated due to some personal vendetta, political rivalry etc. The accused praying for anticipatory bail has to make out more than a prima facie case of false implication. 14. Grant of anticipatory bail is not a matter of course. Here is a case where the accused persons have been named in the FIR. The first informant is none other but an eye-witness to the incident. He may be the son of the deceased but that by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve what he has alleged in the FIR more particularly when the investigation is going on. We also take into consideration the fact that the deceased died of multiple head injuries. Postmortem Report reveals there were multiple fractures. Prima facie, the ocular version as narrated is in tune with the medical evidence on record. 15. Just because a title suit is pending between the parties by itself could not have been a ground to believe that the accused persons have been falsely implicated."

Supreme Court noted that from the submissions made by the Additional Public Prosecutor before the High Court it is apparent that the Respondent No.2 has five criminal antecedents and the Respondent No.3 had also few criminal antecedents.

Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ritesh Kumar bench directs release of minor, directs payment of Rs 5 lakh by erring officials as compensation for illegal arrest

In Md. Jahid (Minor) under the guardianship of cousin brother Mohammad Navi Hussain/Parokar vs. The State of Bihar, through Director General of Police, Government of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench-II of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ritesh Kumar delivered a 14-page long judgement dated January 9, 2026, wherein, it concluded:".....we direct that the petitioner shall be released forthwith by the Juvenile Justice Board from the observation home/children’s home and in this regard appropriate release order shall be issued by the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura forthwith. 24. For his unlawful arrest and detention, we direct the State to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as compensation. This amount, we are assessing, keeping in view that a young boy who is a juvenile at this stage has undergone physical and mental agony for two and half months by now. The State Government shall pay this amount to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."

Justice Prsad who authored the judgement drew on judgment of the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 1960 while dealing with the case of contravention of fundamental rights of a citizen. He referred to the decision in Arvind Kumar Gupta vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2025 (6) BLJ 5 by the Patna High Court which observed in paragraphs ‘27’, ‘28’ and ‘29’: “27. In the case of Rudal Sah Vs. State of Bihar and Another while dealing with a case of unlawful detention in jail, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-“...In these circumstances, the refusal of this court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lipservice to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated.” 28. In the case of Pankaj Kumar Sharma Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215, a learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has reviewed the case laws on the subject and upon finding that the petitioner was made to suffer in the lockup for only half an hour, the learned Single Judge directed for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner recoverable from the salaries of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who were the erring officials."

The judgement reads: "25. We find that the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court by filing a writ application of Habeas Corpus. He/his family has incurred expenses in contesting the litigation which were imposed upon them due to misuse of power by the police official. 26. We, therefore, award a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to the petitioner which shall also be paid by the State within the same period. 27. It is well settled in law that when the State is saddled with cost and compensation because of misuse of power by an executive, such cost and compensation must be realized from the erring officials. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad and Others reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 1051 which was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019, however, the same has not been interfered with and the view is based on the earlier views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have been duly discussed."

Justice Prasad who authored the judgement wrote: "28. We direct the competent authority/the Director General of Police, Bihar to institute an inquiry into the matter in administrative side, take a suitable view based on the materials which would come in course of the inquiry proceeding and realize the cost and the compensation amount from the erring officials. The cost and compensation amount which will be paid to the petitioner shall be realized from the erring officials after completion of inquiry, within a period of six months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. 29. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Principal District Judge, Madhepura, the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura and the Director General of Police, Bihar for compliance."

The writ application was filed in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release of the petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondents. It was the case of the petitioner that the I.O. in this case arrested the petitioner in complete disregard to the powers of arrest and without following the established procedure of law. The petitioner alleged gross violation of his fundamental right as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

One Khushboo Praveen wife of Md. Amzad, resident of village Sapardah Ward No. 8, P.S.- Puraini, District- Madhepura lodged a first information report giving rise to Puraini P.S. Case of 2025 dated July 11, 2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 308(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. She alleged that in connection with a land dispute, a Panchayati was held with the intervention of the co-villagers, the accused persons called the prosecution side to participate in the said Panchayati but while the Panchayati was going on, the 14 named accused including this petitioner who are all the co-villagers of the informant assaulted the prosecution side. It was also alleged that the accused persons had taken away the silver chain and other ornaments. In connection with the said occurrence, the petitioner’s mother also lodged a counter case giving rise to Puraini P.S. Case of 2025 dated July 16, 2025. The  case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 76, 126(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023. 

During investigation of the Puraini P.S. Case, the I.O. found that there was no sufficient material to proceed against ten named accused persons including thE petitioner. One accused, namely, Md. Naushad was arrested. The investigation was supervised by the Inspector and upon instructions, the I.O. filed a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 235 of 2025 dated September 1, 2025 in which ten accused including this petitioner were shown in Column No. 12 as not chargesheeted accused. In another words, they were not sent up for trial. A reading of the chargesheet which is on the record  would show that the same was filed on the direction of the Senior Police officer, while the arrested accused Md. Naushad was chargesheeted, the investigation was kept open against three absconding accused, namely, (1) Md. Muktar, (2) Md. Zakir and (3) Md. Akhtar. It was apparent that after about 25 days, the I.O. received a review note/supervision note from the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (in short ‘DIG’), Koshi Range, Saharsa. It was evident that the supervision note was recorded by the DIG on his own on the request of the informant who had visited the office of the DIG with an application complaining that the Inspector of Police had wrongly exonerated ten named accused persons. The DIG simply recorded in his note the allegations. Taking note of the statements of the witnesses, he issued a direction to the I.O. to proceed with the investigation of the case assuming that the allegations are true against the accused persons. He directed the Superintendent of Police, Madhepura to ensure further action and arrest all the remaining accused persons expeditiously. A perusal of the case diary would showed that the supervision note of the DIG was incorporated in the case diary on September 25, 2025 whereafter the I.O. straightway proceeded to conduct raid on the house of the accused persons. The case diary did not show that after the supervision note of the DIG, any instruction was obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Madhepura. It did not show that the I.O., being fully aware of the fact that the ten accused persons had already been shown not sent up for trial, made any application in the court of Magistrate for permitting a further investigation. The I.O. could not lay his hand to any other material against the petitioner but on October 23, 2025, he arrested the petitioner, described his age as 19 years and produced him before the court from where he was sent to jail. It appeared that even at the time of his production before the Magistrate, the attention of the Magistrate was not drawn towards the fact that the petitioner was shown in the column of not chargesheeted accused in the chargesheet, therefore, once the chargesheet had been filed in the court, it was incumbent upon the I.O. to file an application seeking further investigation of the case if at all any material had come against the petitioner. Even the Magistrate did not look into these aspects of the matter and straightway in a mechanical manner sent the petitioner behind the bars. 

The petitioner approached the High Court by filing the writ application and informed this Court on November 24, 2025 in course of hearing that the petitioner was a juvenile as per his date of birth certificate i.e. the registration card of the Bihar School Examination Board showing his date of birth as January 1, 2010. The petitioner complained that despite the fact that he was a juvenile, the Magistrate did not assess his age at the time of sending him behind the bars and in complete breach of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the petitioner was languishing in jail. On 24.11.2025, the High Court noticed the submissions and asked the State to file a counter affidavit duly sworn by the I.O. who had effected the arrest of the petitioner. In the meantime, the High Court observed that “it will be open to the Jurisdictional Magistrate to take corrective measures after considering the date of birth certificate of the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner is aged below 18 years, it will be incumbent upon the Jurisdictional Magistrate to send him to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for assessment of age and considering his date of birth certificate as per the Bihar School Examination Board, he would be kept in an observation home and not in jail with adults.”

The High Court was been informed at this stage that, in fact, after coming to know the claim of the petitioner that he was a juvenile, the Jurisdictional Magistrate had vide his order dated November 21, 2025 referred him for assessment of age to the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura. A Letter No. 13 dated January 7, 2026 from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Madhepura showed that the petitioner was declared juvenile aged about 15 years 06 months and 08 days on the date of occurrence.

A question arose for consideration in the present case as to how the petitioner could have been arrested on October 23, 2025 when he was not chargesheeted in the case and, in fact, in the Chargesheet No. 235, he was shown one amongst the ten accused persons who were not chargesheeted/sent up for trial.

Justice Prasad observed:"We have already taken note of the fact that during investigation, sufficient materials were not found against the petitioner to send him to trial and after the supervision note of the DIG, the I.O. had not collected any other and further material against the petitioner. All that he did after receipt of the supervision note of the DIG was that he conducted a raid and ultimately arrested the petitioner from his house on 23.10.2025." 

Supreme Court reverses Justice Satyavrat Verma's anticipatory bail rejection order

In Sima Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 4-page long order dated November 7, 2025 upon hearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) which arose out of impugned 3-page long order dated July 16, 2025 passed by Justice Satyavrat Verma of Patna High Court. 

Supreme Court's Division Bench reversed the order of Justice Verma saying, "3....we deem it appropriate to confirm the order of interim protection and deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 4 In view of the above, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing suitable bail bonds and sureties...." The Court had granted interim relief by its order dated September 24, 2025 by issuing direction for not taking coercive steps.

The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court apprehending her arrest in connection with a FIR dated December 1, 2024 registered at Police Station Banjariya, District East Champaran, Bihar for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 

Earlier, in Sima Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Verma had concluded:"5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected. 7. However, if the petitioner surrenders on or before 30.07.2025, in that event, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the case, on the same day, keeping in mind that husband of the petitioner has been granted the privilege of regular bail by this Court." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending her arrest in connection with Banjariya P.S. Case No.394/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. Act.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that woman petitioner was a person with clean antecedent. The husband of the petitioner had approached the High Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc.No.32639/2025 and the same was allowed by an order dated 22.05.2025. It was submitted that informant alleged that husband of the petitioner was indulged in trade of liquor, further on 26.11.2024, the Banjariya police caught the liquor of her husband, on account of which, the husband of the petitioner abused the informant alleging that it was at his instance that the liquor was caught, thereafter husband of the petitioner assaulted the informant by knife causing injury. It was next alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused Vivek Kumar also assaulted the brother of the informant Vinod Sah by knife causing injury. It was submitted that the injury suffered by Vinod Sah was simple in nature. A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner along with Vivek were alleged to have assaulted Vinod by knife causing injury. It was also submitted that Vinod suffered two injuries and the husband of the petitioner was granted the privilege of regular bail, as such, the APP submitted that it was not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner, in the nature of allegation as alleged in the FIR.

Supreme Court reverses pre-arrest bail rejection order by Justice Purnendu Singh

In Praween Barnawal @ Praween Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025),Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 4-page long order dated November 6, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''....the interim protection granted by this Court on 18.09.2025 is made absolute and it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail, provided he continues to cooperate in the investigation.'' It disposed of the Special Leave Petition. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR of 2024 dated December 30, 2024, which was rejected by the High Court and the courts below.During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated September 18, 2025 and it was provided that if the petitioner joins the investigation and cooperates with the Investigating Officer (IO), no coercive steps shall be taken against him. The petitioner joined the investigation and was found cooperating with the IO.

Earlier, in Praween Barnawal @ Praween Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court passed a 3-page long order dated August 20, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''7. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that though it is not specific in the FIR, as to whether, the demand of dowry was made just before the alleged murder took place, however, considering the fact that certain amount was transferred through RTGS into the account of the petitioner just before the marriage on 03.02.2022 and the marriage had taken place on 10.02.2022 and it is evident that after commission of murder, the dead body was hanged and the door was locked from outside, I don’t find that in any manner the complicity of the petitioner can be denied. I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.'' 

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. case of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 3(5) of the BNS. According to the allegation made in the FIR, for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the petitioner along with other co-accused committed murder of the daughter of the informant. The deceased was found hanging in a close room which was locked from outside. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner was younger brother of the husband of the deceased and he was a student and had no connection with the matrimonial affairs between the husband and the wife and due to some difference, the petitioner who was not present at the time of alleged offence was implicated in the  case on the ground that certain amount was transferred through RTGS into the account of the petitioner just before the marriage took place which was deposited willingly by the father of the deceased. The counsel also submitted that for similar allegation, other co-accused was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court vide order dated April 30, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.22663 of 2025. The petitioner had clean antecedent and sought pre-arrest bail.

Abhlasha Jha, the counsel on behalf of the informant had vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. She submitted that the entire family including the petitioner had committed murder of the daughter of the informant and after commission of murder, the dead body was hanged and the door was locked from outside and, as such, the complicity of the petitioner cannot be denied in the alleged murder. APP for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Supreme Court grants relief to Niraj Kumar, which was denied by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh

In Niraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed an order dated August 11, 2025 in a case which arose out of a P.S. case 2024 from Ganga bridge Thana, Vaishali. It condoned the delay. The order reads:"In the event of arrest, the petitioner(s) 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." The petitioner has challenged to the judgment and order dated January 29, 2025 passed by the High Court. 

In Niraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court had passed a 2-page long order dated January 29, 2025 rejecting the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner due to the nature of accusation and gravity of offence. The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 103(1), 61 (2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 

As per the prosecution case on 05.08.2024 at 11.00 AM the petitioner along with other F.I.R., named accused persons called brother of the informant who went in the company of accused persons and on the same day at about 2.30 Pm, informant came to know that his brother was lying on ground in dead condition . With the help of villagers, his brother was rushed to nearby clinic of Sadhusharan Choudhary where he was declared dead. Then , informant raised suspicion that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons in collusion with each other killed brother of informant.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely been implicated in the case . Only suspicion has been raised against this petitioner. Informant was no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. There was delay of 4 days in lodging the F.I.R., for which there was no plausible explanation for the same . At best, it was a case of last seen with the deceased. The State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there was specific allegation against the petitioner that he along with other co-accused persons killed the deceased. It was also submitted that it was the petitioner and other co-accused persons who took away the deceased along with them and thereafter deceased was left in dead condition.