Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail order by Patna High Court

In Yuvraj Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 4-page long order dated September 7, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be released on anticipatory bail...." It recorded that the petitioner was not apprehended from the place of occurrence, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The order reads: "3. We note that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and was implicated in the offence on the basis of a confession made by one of the co- accused, specifically one of the Directors of Urmila Education and Services Pvt. Ltd. 4. We further note that the co-accused had been released on regular bail by this Court on 13.07.2026, considering the aspect that all the offences are Magistrate triable, and that the entire case is based on documentary evidence." 

The petitioner was denied anticipatory bail by the 2-page long order dated April 30, 2026 by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court in connection with FIR No. 5117063251028/2025 registered at Jakkanpur Police Station, District Patna for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 303(2), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.The allegation was that of conducting a fraudulent recruitment drive to Patna Metro, through the creation of a fake website on which the fraudulent recruitment was advertised. The recruitment was conducted by Urmila Education and Services Pvt. Ltd., the Directors of which are also arrayed as accused. 

As per the prosecution case, some criminals were caught holding interview on behalf of one Urmial Education and Service and Pvt. Ltd. It was found that it was a company promising private jobs and was involved in cheating. It emerged during investigation that the petitioner, Akhilesh Yadav and others had made a plan for cheating unemployed candidates and therefore they gave an advertisement in the name of Patna Metro and Urmila Education and Service Pvt. Ltd. and started collecting money and holding the interview. The bail application of similarly situated co-accused namely, Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar Yadav had been dismissed by Justice Kumar's 2-page long order dated March 16, 2026. Unlike the Supreme Court, Justice Kumar was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and had dismissed the application.
 

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."