Supreme Court stays operation of Justice Sandeep Kumar's order, and proceedings pursuant to cognizance order by S.D.J.M., Buxar

In Kamla Devi @ Kamla Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 2-page long order dated March 20, 2026, wherein it stayed the operation of the order dated January 13, 2026 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court. Supreme Court's order reads: "....further proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 1006/2009, including proceedings pursuant to the cognizance order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Buxar, shall remain stayed." 

Justice Kumar has passed the order upon hearing the application filed for quashing the order dated Juky 27, 2010 passed by the S.D.J.M., Buxar by which, cognizance was taken under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court in the year 2016 i.e., after more than six years, after an inordinate delay. 

Justice Kumar observed that this application was dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds at the stage of discharge. He wrote: "5. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the Court below in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577. 6. Interim protection granted to the petitioners by order dated 06.09.2023 is hereby vacated. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Buxar through FAX for its compliance forthwith."

Supreme Court says, Guddu Ray "shall not reside in or enter in the village Maqsoodpur, District-Patna, till the conclusion of the trial" in a murder case

In The State of Bihar & Anr. vs.  Baleshwari Devi (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K Singh passed a 3-page long order dated February 25, 2026. The order reads: "Despite notice served, none appears for the contesting respondent(s). Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a threat was extended by the private respondent to the petitioner even very recently. The Trial Court has also ordered further investigation. It is a case of gruesome murder. The petitioner’s son has been shot dead at point blank range. Though the allegations are quite serious, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order(s) only for the reason that the bail was granted to the private respondents as early as on 13.11.2024 and 20.11.2024. However, in view of the prevailing situation and the fact that the safety of the petitioner and her family is in question, particularly, when threats have been exerted against them by the private respondent in SLP(Crl) No.8371/2025, we direct that the private respondent in SLP(Crl) No.8371/2025 shall not reside in or enter in the village Maqsoodpur, District-Patna, till the conclusion of the trial. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek cancellation of bail in the future in the event of a threat at the instance of the private respondent in SLP(Crl) No. 8371/2025. The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of, accordingly." It was filed in the Supreme Court on January 12, 2025, registered on February 12, 2025 and verified on February 13, 2025.

Earlier, in Guddu Ray @ Guddu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2024), Patna High Court's Justice Chandra Prakash Singh had passed a 3-page long order dated November 13, 2024 concluded: "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court, Patna Sadar in Serial No. 158 of 2024 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 147 of 2024, is set aside against the appellant. The criminal appeal is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the above named appellant, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court, Patna Sadar in Serial No. 158 of 2024 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 147 of 2024, with the condition/s:- (i) The appellant is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the appellant are liable to be cancelled." The Respondent No.2 was Baleshwari Devi. The criminal appeal was filed on July 23, 2024 and registered on July 26, 2024

The order was passed after hearing an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail vide order dated June 27, 2024 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court, Patna Sadar in Serial No. 158 of 2024 which arose out of Shahpur P.S. Case of 2024 dated April 18, 2024 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 338, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27of the Arms Act and sections 3(1)(r)(s) / 3(2) (va) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 

As per the prosecution case, on April 14, 2024, the informant along with the some other people was celebrating Ambedkar Jyanti, in the meantime, some anti-social elements started abusing by taking her caste name for which the informant objected. Thereafter, on April 17, 2024, the appellant along with the other co-accused persons having arms came there and started pelting stones on her community members causing injuries to them. It was also alleged that they also fired on them due to that one Vikaram Kumar sustained gun shot injury and subsequently he died. The appellant submitted that the appellant was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motive. The counsel also submitted that the caste name was not disclosed by anyone at the time of the alleged occurrence. As per FIR, no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the alleged incident hence, no case was made out under section SC/ST Act. There was general and omnibus allegation against the appellant. There was no specific
allegation of firing against the appellant. The co-accused person was already granted regular bail by the High Court vide order dated August 22, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3192 of 2024. The appellant had no criminal antecedent. The appellant was in custody since April 19, 2024. 

Justice Chandra Prakash Singh 

Supreme Court sets aside bail denying order by Justice Sandeep Kumar

In Bansilal Yadav @ Gautam Kumar Ydav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed a 3-page long order dated February 2, 2026, wherein, it concluded, "....we direct that the present petitioner(s) be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court in connection with Sessions Trial No.675 of 2023 arising from FIR No.83 of 2023 dated 01.04.2023 registered at Police Station Laukaha, District Madhubani, Bihar. The Special Leave Petition(s) and pending application(s) are disposed of accordingly. The case arose out of impugned order dated July 18, 2025 by Patna High Court's Justice Sandeep Kumar. The petitioner had sought bail in connection with a Sessions Trial (which arose out of Laukaha P.S. case  of 2023) registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120(B), 504 of the Indian Penal Code.  Justice Kumar had observed:"4. From the report it appears that it is accused persons who are delaying the trial. 5. In these circumstances, no ground for reviewing the order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.66935 of 2023 is made out. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed." Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court on December 13, 2023.

In his earlier order dated December 13, 2023 Justice Kumar had observed:"3. As per the prosecution case, due to land dispute, three persons from the prosecution side was killed by the accused persons and some other persons sustained grievous injury.....6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has participated in the killing of three persons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This application is dismissed. 7. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner." The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was in custody since April 2, 2023, he was quite innocent and has not committed any offence. A.P.P. had vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and had submitted that there was sufficient material available on record to connect the petitioner with the crime.

Supreme Court observed: "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner(s), and the fact that out of ten named accused, six have already been granted bail and two have not been sent up for trial, we are inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner(s)."

Supreme Court sets aside Patna High Court's order passed without considering charge-sheet etc

In Naveen Kumar Sah vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan passed a 6-page long order dated January 19, 2026, wherein, it concluded: ".....we are of the view that since the High Court was not apprised of the charge-sheet submitted after investigation, and the impugned order came to be passed without considering the charge-sheet and the materials collected in support thereof, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is set aside. The writ petition of the petitioner (respondent no.7 herein), namely, Criminal Writ Case No.531 of 2024, shall stand restored on the file of the High Court to be dealt with afresh in accordance with law. 8. We clarify that parties shall bring on record of the High Court the charge-sheet and the materials submitted in support thereof. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." The High Court's 3-page long order in Bijay Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) was passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar. Naveen Kumar Sah was the Respondent No. 7 in the High Court.

The Court granted leave and allowed the appeal. The appeal impugned judgment and order of the Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna dated July 14, 2025 by which the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, quashed the first information report (FIR) under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Arms Act).

The submission of the counsel for the appellant (complainant) was that prior to the date the order of the High Court was passed, the Investigating Agency had already submitted a charge-sheet indicting the accused of offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 188, 290, 341, 323, 504 of the IPC; Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act, 2000. It was submitted that the High Court failed to consider the charge-sheet and the materials collected in support thereof before exercising its writ jurisdiction to quash the FIR.

In Mamta Shailesh Chandra vs. State of  Uttarakhand and others1 it was held that even if charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the FIR, charge-sheet and other documents. Likewise, in Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.2, this Court held:

“19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on investigation, the Court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. ..”

Justice Kumar had concluded:". It appears that the land of the petitioner was forcibly being used as informant and others as the informant has not been able to show any order of any authority declaring the land of the petitioner as aam rasta (common passage). If the land of the petitioner was being used as aam rasta (common passage) by the informant and others forcibly then the petitioner has a right of private defence and he has not exceeded that right. 8. In view of the above, I am of the view that the present F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, this criminal writ application is allowed and the F.I.R. vide Mojahidpur P.S. Case No.246 of 2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed." 

Supreme Court observed that the counsel for respondent no.7, though could not dispute that charge-sheet was submitted before the impugned order was passed, submitted that the allegations were false and malicious. Moreover, there was a dispute regarding a passage which the accused claims to be his own. Otherwise also, the allegations were only regarding a shot being fired in air. As the shot was allegedly fired from a weapon licensed to the accused, no offence was committed by the accused.

It noted:"Be that as it may, as it has been brought on record that before the date of the order of the High Court, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Agency, the same ought to have been brought to the notice of the High Court."

"this matter should not have reached Supreme Court, Patna High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction:Justice J. B. Pardiwala

In Vishwajeet Kumar @ Vishwajeet Saini vs. State of Bihar & Anr.(2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K.V. Vishwanathan passed an order dated January 20, 2026. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) arose out of impugned final order dated November 24, 2025 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. Notably, the Trial as on date is pending in the Court of Exclusive Special Judge (SC/AT Act), Civil Court (Sadar), Patna.

The High Court of Patna had declined anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with ABP No. 79 of 2025 arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 03 of 2018, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 354(B), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and Sections 3(l)(r)(g)(p)(w)(z) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, respectively. 

Supreme Court observed:"4. It appears from the materials on record that after the registration of FIR, investigation was undertaken and at the end of the investigation, the Investigating Agency thought fit to file a Closure Report in so far as the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime is concerned. 5. Pursuant to the filing of the Closure Report, notice was issued by the Court concerned to the defecto-complainant. After hearing the defacto-complainant and the State, the Closure Report was ultimately accepted. The order passed by the Court concerned accepting the closure report attains finality. 6. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner was not put to trial. Charge-sheet came to be filed against other co- accused.7. It appears that the original defecto-complainant i.e. the victim entered the witness box for her oral testimony and in the course of her oral testimony, she reiterated the very same allegations levelled by her against the petitioner in the FIR. Thereafter, she preferred an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to add the present petitioner as an accused in the trial.

The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court, adding him as an accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code, challenged the order before the High Court. However, the petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the Police prayed for anticipatory bail which came to be declined. This prosecution is of the 2018. This matter should not have travelled to the Supreme Court. It was expected of the High Court to exercise its discretion in accordance with law, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

Supreme Court concluded:"We need not say anything further as the original order passed by the Trial Court adding the petitioner as an accused has been challenged before the High Court and the High Court is in-seisin of the original order.12. In such circumstances, referred to above, we order that in the event of arrest of the petitioner by the Police in connection with the offence referred to above, he shall be released on bail, subject to terms and conditions that the Investigating Officer may deem fit to impose.13. Once the petitioner is released by the IO, he shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail.14. Whether the petitioner should face the trial or not will be subject to the final outcome of the petition pending in the High Court.15. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of."

Drawing on decision of the Supreme Court, passed in Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar & others, Justice Singh had concluded:"4. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Bachu Das (supra), instant appeal filed for pre-arrest bail to the appellant, is dismissed as being not maintainable."

Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Dr. Anshuman in a case of scuffle

In Manjay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 4-page long order dated November 3, 2025 allowing the criminal appeal. The Court set aside the impugned order by Justice Dr. Anshuman of the Patna High Court. The appellants were granted anticipatory bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court.

The appellants had approached the Supreme Court apprehending their arrest. The Court observed: ''4. Since the appellants have joined the investigation and cooperated with the same, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order, and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.'' 

In Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Dr. Anshuman passed a 3-page long order dated November 12, 2024 which stated that petitioner Nos.3 (Sajan Kumar), 4 (Pankaj Kumar) and 5 (Pawan Kumar) shall be released on anticipatory bail as they have clean antecedent, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M.-14, (East), Muzaffarpur in connection with Bochaha P. S. Case No.131 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. So far as petitioner Nos.1 (Ramesh Rai), 2 (Rajesh Rai) and 6 (Manjay Kumar) was concerned, this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 as their antecedent was not clean, therefore the bail application of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 was rejected. Dr. Anhsuman concluded:'' 10. However, Trial Court is directed to consider the regular bail application of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6, if they surrender within 4 weeks from today and pray for regular bail, then Trial Court shall pass order without being prejudice of the present order preferably on the same day.'' 

The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Bochaha P. S. Case No.131 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 353, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution, the FIR was lodged against 8 named and 15-17 unknown accused persons including the petitioners against whom there is allegation of abusing and scuffling with the informant and police party due to which injury took place.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He submitted that the petitioners were falsely implicated due to village politics and land dispute. He further submits that the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. He further submitted that the petitioner due to land dispute, the scuffle took place between both the parties and in this scuffling, police party has also been injured. He also submitted that petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 had clean antecedent whereas petitioner No.1, 2 and 6 did not have clean antecedent. 

The APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. and direct allegation of assault against them. 

Prior to this he had passed an an order dated June 20, 2024 which reads: ''Perused the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in Special Leave to Appea (Crl) No. 1532 of 2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.''

Conviction of Suman Devi under Section 302 IPC altered to one under Section 304 Part-II, IPC: Justice Sourendra Pandey

In Suman Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 25-page long judgement dated October 17, 2025, wherein, it directed: ''50. The appellant, namely, Suman Devi, is directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not required or detained in any other case.'' 

Justice Pandey observed;.''...it would be evident that from the evidence which has been led by the prosecution, we do not find that the death was caused with pre-motivation. We have seen that there was no weapon used by the accused/appellant in committing the crime and even the injuries received by the deceased do not go on to show/prove that they would have ordinarily cause death of a person. The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the injuries, which were found on the body of the deceased, are also not being proved rather the deposition of P.W. 2, the father of the deceased and the husband of the accused/appellant, ratifies the same, wherein, he has stated that his wife on being asked as to why she did it, she stated that it was done accidentally and she had not thought he would die.''

He added:''We have also seen that there was no motive as also any kind of quarrel or dispute between the accused/appellant and her in-laws. This Court has observed that the occurrence had taken place in broad day light in presence of P.W. 6, the mother of the deceased, and the conduct and behaviour of the accused/appellant after the incident, wherein, she had brought the body of the deceased out of the room, laid it on the cot and stayed there and did not make any attempt to flee. 45. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is, thus, altered to one under Section 304 Part-I. 46. It appears from the case records that the appellant is in custody since 03.10.2020 and has, thus, spent about five years in jail by now. Mr. Katriar, learned counsel for the appellant, has stated that the appellant has a young child, who too is with her in jail. 47. We have also given our anxious consideration on the fact that the appellant never intended to cause death; or that she only wanted to secure the well being and happiness of her stepson and as such, the appellant needs to be dealt with leniently. 48. For the reasons afore-noted, this Court deem it appropriate and believe that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period of custody which she has already undergone. 

The appeal arose out of the judgment of conviction dated November 3, 2022 and the order of sentence dated November 10, 2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Banka (Bihar) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 249 of 2021, which arose out of Amarpur P.S. Case No. 598 of 2020. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to also suffer simple imprisonment of one week for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one month each for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC. 

The prosecution case was based on the written application dated October 2, 2020 given by the informant (P.W. 2). In his written report, the informant stated that on October 2, 2020 at around 14:00 hours, when he was working at the poultry-farm of his village, one Dhananjay Tanti informed him that his 7 years old son, namely, Sohit Kumar is lying in an unconscious state and is unable to breathe. It is further alleged that when he reached to his home, he found his son dead. Thereafter, the father and the mother of respectively, told the informant that his wife, Suman Devi (appellant), has killed his son by suffocating him. On the basis of the written application, Amarpur P.S. Case No. 598 of 2020, dated October 2, 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 

Supreme Court reverses Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh's pre-arrest bail rejection order

In Md. Faizi Ahmad vs. 1 . The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court passed a 3-page long order dated October 3, 2025, wherein, it condoned the delay and issued notice. The order  reads: ''By way of an ad interim order, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail...In the meantime, the petitioner will file additional documents placing of record the details of antecedents.'' The case arose out of impugned order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court dated April 30, 2025

In Md. Faizi Ahmad vs. 1 . The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justice Singh had passed a 2-page long order dated April 30, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''Considering the nature of accusation , criminal antecedents and gravity of offence, prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is rejected.'' The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 420, 406, 120 ( B ), 323 , 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal code. 

According to the  prosecution case, pursuant to agreement made between the parties for sale of land, it was alleged that Rs. 18 lacs 21 thousand was given to petitioner in cash and through bank in the name of accused persons and thereafter petitioner refused to execute the sale deed or to return the alleged amount. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. It was also submitted that complainant and accused persons were distant relatives and the entire complaint case was false and concocted. The petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged incident and there was no specific allegation against him. The dispute was purely civil in nature. 

The counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had received Rs. 18 lacs 21 thousand through cash and in bank account and petitioner had got seven criminal antecedents. The case arose out of a P.S. case of 2021 from a Nawadah complaint case.  

Supreme Court orders deposit of interim maintenance amount in wife's account instead of Treasury

In Abhyuday Dwivedi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh passed a 2-page long order dated October 10, 2025. The order reads: ''It appears that the petitioner, with a view to harassing the wife, has been deliberately depositing the interim maintenance amount in the Treasury, instead of paying her either by way of demand draft or through RTGS in her account. The petitioner is directed to withdraw the entire amount deposited by him in the Treasury along with interest accrued thereupon and redeposit the said amount in the bank account of respondent No.2-wife. The Court concerned may permit him to withdraw that amount for the purpose of redepositing the same into the account of respondent No.2-wife. The bank account details are already known to the petitioner. The needful shall be done within one week, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed. 2. Hereafter, the interim maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month shall be directly deposited by the petitioner into the bank account of respondent No.2-wife. 3. List on 27.10.2025 for compliance." The case arose out of impugned judgment and order dated February 7, 2025 in Abhyuday Dwivedi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025) passed by Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey of the Patna High Court. The Respondent No. 2 is Prerna Singh. 

In Abhyuday Dwivedi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court had passed an order dated February 7, 2025, wherein, he had concluded:''The second  anticipatory bail petition is dismissed as not maintainable, but at the same time, it is observed that if the petitioner surrenders before the court below, it shall take endeavor to explore the possibility of restoration of the nuptial tie by taking recourse of mediation and conciliation process.'' The petitioner had apprehended his arrest in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 297 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court had disposed of the application. The Respondent No. 2 is Prerna Singh. 

Supreme Court recalls order of non-bailable warrant, directs release of Supan Rai, an from the judicial custody

In Baleshwari Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 3-page long order dated October 10, 2025. The Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) was filed on September 21, 2024, registered on October 4, 2024 and verified on October 6, 2024. The Court recalled the order of non-bailable warrant and directed release of Supan Rai, the Respondent No. 2 from the judicial custody who is an accused for the offence/s punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 338, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1) (r)(s) / 3(2) (va) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Supreme Court's list of order, judgements and record of proceedings reveals that the Court passed orders on October 10, 2025, September 26, 2025, September 10, 2025, July 31, 2025, May 23, 025, April 28, 2025, March 28, 2025, March 25, 2025, February 21, 2025, February 17, 2025, February 4, 2025, January 2, 2025 and October 15, 2024. The Court's record of the I.A.s and SLPs mention the order dated April 18, 2024 passed in SLP(Crl.) No.13924/2024 titled Baleshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors but the same is not there Court's list of order, judgements and record of proceedings.  

On January 2, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed an order reads:'' 2. Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against the respondent no.2 for remaining present before this Court on 04.02.2025, either personally or through an Advocate. 3. The bailable warrant be executed through the SHO of the concerned Police Station.'' It recorded: ''Nobody appears for the respondent no.2 though duly served.'' 

On February 4, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order which reads: ''1. None has filed appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2, though the bailable warrant issued by the Court vide the order dated 02.01.2025 has been served. 2. Hence, let the non-bailable warrant be issued against the respondent No.2, to be executed through the SHO of the Police
Station concerned. 3. List on 21.02.2025.''

On February 17, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench passed an order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2332/2025 which arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated November 13, 2024 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3487/2024 passed by the Patna High Court in Baleshwari Devi vs. The State of Bihar  and Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2353/2025 which arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated November 13, 2024 in CRASJ No. 3698/2024 passed by the Patna High Court. It issued notice and tagged both the petitions with SLP(Crl.) No.13924/2024.    

On February 21, 2025, Supreme Court's Division of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13924/2024. It reads: ''The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the non-bailable warrant could not be executed as the respondent no.2 is not found at the given address. He seeks more time to get the whereabouts of the respondent no.2 to serve the non-bailable warrant.'' In Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2332/2025 and other connected matters, its order reads:''As per the office report, notice could not be issued to the respondents as the counsel for the petitioner(s) has not filed spare copies. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) shall do the needful in that regard. However, liberty is sought on his behalf to serve the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. Liberty, as sought for, is granted. Learned counsel for the respondent-State seeks time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit.'' The case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated August 22, 2024 in CRLA(SJ) No. 3192/2024 passed by the Patna High Court. 

On March 25, 2025, Supreme Court's Division of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order which reads: ''1. The matter has been taken up on oral mentioning being done by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – State, though not listed today on the board. 2. According to him, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21.02.2025, the respondent No.2 – accused has been arrested and has been brought to this Court. 3. Let the respondent No.2 be taken into judicial custody of the concerned jurisdictional Court. 4. The SLP be listed in normal course.'' The case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated August 22, 2024 in CRLA(SJ) No. 3192/2024. 

On March 28, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed an order which reads:'' 1. Let the notice be issued to the respondents. 2. Additionally, liberty is granted to serve notice upon the Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar. 3. Tag alongwith SLP (Crl.) No.13924 of 2024.'' 

On April 28, 2025, Supreme Court's Division of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order, which reads: "1. It appears that pursuant to the non bailable warrant issued by this Court, respondent no.2 in SLP(Crl.) No. 13924/2024 was arrested and now, he is in judicial custody. 2. It appears that respondent nos.2 and 3 in SLP(Crl) No. 4153/2025 and respondent no.2 in rest of the matters, are not served. 3. Let fresh notice be issued to the unserved respondents, to be served through the concerned SHO, returnable after three weeks."

On May 23, 2025, Supreme Court's Division of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order in SLP (Crl.) Diary No(s). 2135/2025. The order reads: "Delay condoned. 2. Application for exemption from filing Official Translation is allowed. 3. Issue notice. 4. Tag with SLP (Crl.) No. 13924 of 2024."  The case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated November 20, 2024 in CRASJ No. 3726/2024 passed by the Patna High Court.

On July 31, 2025, Supreme Court's Record of Proceedings states that ''Respondent no.1 is duly represented. Despite service being complete, none has entered appearance for respondent no.2. Let the matter be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court, as per rules. As sought, respondent no.1 may file counter affidavit, in the meantime, if any'' in SLP(Crl.) No.13924/2024 and 8371/2025. 

The order in SLP(Crl.) Nos.2353, 2358 and 2332/2025 reads:'' Respondent no.1 is duly represented. As sought, respondent no.1 may file counter affidavit, in the meantime, if any. Service report with regard to respondent no.2 from concerned S.H.O has not been received. Issue reminder. List again on 10.09.2025.'' In SLP(Crl.) No.4153/2025, the order reads: ''Respondent no.1 is duly represented. As sought, respondent no.1 may file counter affidavit, in the meantime, if any. Service report with regard to respondent nos.2 and 3 from concerned S.H.O has not been received. Issue reminder.''

On September 10, 2025 also the Supreme Court had passed an order.  

After Patna High Court's Justice Chandra Prakash Singh passed a 3-page long order dated August 22, 2024 in Supan Rai vs. The State of Bihar Patna & Anr. (2025). Justice Singh had set aside the impugned order dated June 24, 2024 passed by the Pankaj Chauhan Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in a P.S. case of 2024 against the appellant. The criminal appeal was allowed and the appellant, was directed to be enlarged on bail. The appellant was in custody since April 19, 2024. The Respondent No.2 is Baleshwari Devi, wife of Harbans Ram, resident of Maksudpur, Ward No. 03, Shahpur, Patna. The criminal appeal was filed before the Single Judge of the High Court on July 4, 2024. It was registered on July 10, 2024. 

The Supreme Court recorded: ''It is a case where the petitioner being the complainant has come forward to file this instant petition. Even as per the case of the prosecution, a group of 18 persons came and attacked the deceased and several other persons were injured. Admittedly, only one gun was used at the time of the incident. The main accused is stated to have been absconding.'' It observed: ''Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, coupled with the fact that no specific overt act is attributed against respondent No.2, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application for cancellation of bail, if the subsequent development warrants the same. Accordingly, the order of non-bailable warrant issued to the respondent No.2, stands recalled, and he is directed to be released from the judicial custody, as per the terms and conditions already imposed upon him by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in above terms.''   

Justice Singh of the High Court had passed the order after hearing an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail vide order dated June 24, 2024 passed by the Pankaj Chauhan Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in Serial No. 158 of 2024 which arose out of Shahpur, Patna P.S. Case No. 147 of 2024 dated April 18, 2024 registered for the offence/s punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 338, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1) (r)(s) / 3(2) (va) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 

According to the prosecution case, on April 14, 2024, the informant along with the some other people was celebrating Ambedkar Jyanti, in the meantime, some anti-social elements started abusing by taking her caste name for which the informant objected. Thereafter, on April 17, 2024, the appellant along with the other co-accused persons having arms came there and started pelting stones on her community members causing injuries to them. It was also alleged that they also fired on them due to that one Vikaram Kumar sustained gun shot injury and subsequently he died.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. He also submitted that the caste name was not disclosed by anyone at the time of the alleged occurrence. As per FIR, no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the alleged incident hence no case was made out under section SC/ST Act. There was general and omnibus allegation against the appellants. There is no specific allegation of firing against the appellant. The appellant had no criminal antecedent as stated in the bail petition. 

The counsel for Baleshwari Devi, the respondent no. 2 as well as Special Public Prosecutor for the State was opposed the bail petition of the appellant in the High Court. 

Justice Singh had concluded: "6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Pankaj Chauhan Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in Serial No. 158 of 2024 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 147 of 2024, is set aside against the appellant. The criminal appeal is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the above named appellant, is directed to be enlarged on bail...." 

Notably, Supreme Court too has directed the release of Supan Rai ''from the judicial custody in terms and conditions already imposed upon him by the High Court'' but it granted liberty to Baleshwari Devi saying, "However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application for cancellation of bail, if the subsequent development warrants the same." The order dated October 10, 2025 concluded: ''The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Accordingly, IA No. 245017/2025 also stands disposed of.'' It is noteworthy that SLP(Crl.) No. 013924/2024 was heard along with Interlocutory Application No.(s) 231152/2024, 231153/2024, 231155/2024, 281558/2024 with SLP (Criminal) No.(s) 2332/2025, 2353/2025 and 2358/2025.

From the Archives:A Memorandum No. 641/2025 dated February 19, 2025 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna with reference to Office Memorandum No. 441/Vi.Co. Dated 202/2025 (sic) SLP(Crl.) 13924/2024 titled Baleshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. on the subject ''Regarding compliance of the order dated 18.04.24(sic) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court New Delhi in PS Shahpur Case No.147/24'' from SHO Police Station, Shahpur, Patna is in public domain. It reads: ''Sir, With reference to the above mentioned subject, it is to be respectfully apprised that in the light of the points mentioned in the order dated 18.04.24 (sic) passed in SLP(Crl.) No.13924/2024 titled Baleshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, New Delhi, in PS Shahpur Case No.147/24, a non-bailable warrant NBW has been  received for arresting accused Supan Rai son of late Jodha Rai resident of Maksudpur, Ward No.03, Police Station Shahpur, District Patna and producing him before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.'' 

 

SHO Police Station, Shahpur, Patna wrote: ''When I conducted continuous raids for the arrest of the above accused, it was found that he does not reside at home. After collecting information, it was found that he lives somewhere else due to fear of arrest, yet I am conducting raids at various places for his arrest. As soon as he is arrested, he will be produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted for information.''

 

As part of Division Bench Justice Sourendra Pandey set aside judgement of conviction by POCSO judge, Muzaffarpur

On September 26, 2025, Patna High Court delivered 26 judgements in Suraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Jyoti Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Chunnu Das vs. The State Of Bihar, Amar Yadav @ Amar Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Dipak Kumar Rai vs. The State of Bihar, Most. Lal Muni Devi & Ors vs. Murahu Singh, Lovely Kumari vs. Punit Kumar, Rahul Kumar Raushan vs. The State of Bihar, Sikandar Paswan @ Sikendar Paswan vs. The State of Bihar, Manishankar Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar  Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Ajay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Ravindra Kushwaha vs. The State of Bihar, Jai Prakash Pandey vs. The State of Bihar, Satyendra Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Khushboo Sawayam Sidha Mahila Vikas Sawyamlambi Sahakari Samiti Limited vs. The State of Bihar, Lal Babu Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Ram Ratan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Vinod Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, M/s Shubh Laxmi Tent House vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Rajendra Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Vigilance, Government of Bihar, Craig Allen Moore @ Crag Allen Moore vs. The State of Bihar through its Home Secretary, Patna, Vijay Bharti vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, and Brahmdeo Thakur vs. State of Bihar.  

In Suraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 35-page long judgement dated September 26, 2025, wherein, it concluded: ''57. In the present case, as we have already observed, material contradictions among prosecution witnesses and the non-production of the alleged viral video make it difficult to convict the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence which has been led by the prosecution does not stand to prove as contemplated under Criminal Jurisprudence and therefore possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. As in the present case, we have seen that evidences contain material contradictions and the place of the occurrence being not proved without an iota of doubt. The circumstances which has been alleged by the prosecution thus remains in doubt. 58. In view of the aforesaid discussions and taking into account the various judicial pronouncements, we find that the conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld with the kind of evidence which is inconclusive and accordingly the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside giving him the benefit of doubt. 59. The appellant is in incarceration in connection with this case, so he will be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 60. This appeal is allowed.'' The judgement was authored by Justice Pandey. 

Justice Pandey relied on Supreme Court's decision in Raju & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2008) 15 SCC133, wherein the Court held that though the testimony of the victim is believable at par with that of an injured witness but her testimony cannot always be presumed to be gospel truth. He also relied on the decision in Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443, wherein it was held that ''11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.'' 

The criminal appeal arose out of the judgment of conviction dated October 13, 2022 and the order of sentence dated October 14, 2022 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO(W), Muzaffarpur in connection with Mahila P.S. Case of 2021. By the impugned judgment the appellant/Suraj Kumar and co-accused Jyoti Kumar were convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506/34 and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 for the offences under Sections 376(D) IPC as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act; to undergo imprisonment for a term of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to also undergo imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to also undergo imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 

The prosecution case was based on the written application dated 23.04.2021 given by the informant/victim (P.W. 1). In her written report she has stated that on April 7, 2021 at about 11:30 P.M. in the night while she went out of her house to attend the natural call, accused Jyoti Kumar and Suraj Kumar (appellant) forcibly made her to sit on the motorcycle and shutting her mouth took her towards Taraura Dam where both accused raped her one by one. Jyoti Kumar has also made video of the incident for which victim forbade him on which both of them slapped her. Victim also tried to raise alarm but on account of the place being isolated it was heard by none. Both the accused persons also threatened her to kill her father in case of disclosure of the incident to anyone. It was also alleged that the recorded video of the incident was made viral by the accused Jyoti Kumar. 

On the basis of this written application, Mahila P.S. Case No. 45 of 2021 dated April 23, 2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342,  376(D), 509, 506, 323/34 of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.  After completion of investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer (the I.O.) submitted Chargesheet dated June 17, 2021 under Sections 341, 342, 376(D), 509, 506 and 323/34 of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 342, 376(D), 323/34, 506/34 of the IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 14(2) of the POCSO Act was taken on July 9, 2021 against appellant Suraj Kumar. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants Suraj Kumar in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence has examined eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and exhibited some documentary evidences in course of trial. There was only one Defence Witnesse, namely Anandi Devi. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. The appellant denied all  the allegations and took a plea that he was innocent.

The trial court after examining all the evidences available on the record found that in a case of sexual assault, it was not easy for a girl to disclose immediately to anybody. Therefore not reporting the matter to the police immediately alone cannot discredit the testimony of the girl which is otherwise cogent and trustworthy. The victim also supported the incident in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. trial court appreciated the fact that not finding spermatozoa on the body of the victim was just because the life of spermatozoa was generally for 72 hours which had already elapsed in this case at the time of her medical examination. According to the mark-sheet of the victim she was minor on the date of occurrence just one month short to the age of eighteen years. The trial court found that the defence could not shift the burden and the prosecution had successfully proved the fundamental facts of this case establishing the link between the offence committed and the accused committing the offence. The trial court on the FSL report, with respect of the leggings of the victim in which no blood or semen was detected, held that the cloth of the victim was seized after gap of number of days from the date of occurrence therefore it was quite  natural that the blood or semen could not be detected on the seized cloth. It ultimately concluded that the prosecution was able to prove the facts of this case of committing the offence of penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim. When the victim resisted for making video of the incident she was threatened by the accused for not disclosing the incident to anybody otherwise her father will be killed and that was why she did not reveal about the incident to her family members until the video was made viral. The prosecution also proved the facts constituting the offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC. The charge under Section 14(2) of the POCSO Act could not be proved by the prosecution for the reason of non-compliance of mandatory certificate under Sections 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. The presumption under Sections 29 and 30 did not come in the aid of prosecution in this regard as well. 

Bela Singh, counsel for Bina Devi's daughter, the informant opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant primarily on the fact that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution was able to prove the factum of the incident with the help of both oral and documentary evidence. She submitted that all the prosecution witnesses including the victim supported the case of the prosecution and there were minor contradictions which cannot be taken into account as the same is bound to occur because of the nature of offence committed against the minor victim. She also submitted that the family members of the victim through their deposition had corroborated the prosecution story without any infirmity in the same and therefore the conviction cannot be challenged on such ground. She submitted that as far as the submissions made on behalf of the appellant with regard to delay in lodging of the FIR was concerned, the same was immaterial as it was specifically stated by the prosecutrix that the two accused persons were threatening of dire consequences and also had threatened to make the video viral. It was because of such threatening that the victim could not gather strength to report the incident to her immediate family  members within time and therefore the delay in lodging of the FIR. She submitted that from the evidence on record the age of the victim girl was found to be within 18 years and therefore there was no quarrel with regard to her being a minor and therefore the conviction under the provisions of POCSO Act was justified. At last, she submitted that the present case involved two sequence of offences committed by the appellant i.e. firstly they committed rape upon the victim and recorded the same on mobile phone and thereafter made the said video viral. She submitted that in view of such incriminating circumstances the appellant does not deserve to be acquitted and there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence and the appeal was fit to be dismissed. 

But the High Court was not persuaded by her arguments. After hearing the counsels of both the parties, the judgment was reserved on September 17, 2025. The criminal appeal was filed in the High Court on February 15, 2023 and registered on February 24, 2023.  

Earlier, on September 8, 2025, High Court's Division Bench of Justices Prasad and Pandey has passed an order. It reads: "These two appeals were called out earlier on 4th September, 2025. On that day, none appeared for the parties. 2. Today, when these appeals have been called out, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State are present but no one appears on behalf of the appellants. 3. In these circumstances, we appoint a Panel lawyer from the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1, learned Advocate is present in the Court. We request him to represent the appellants."  

Prior to that High Court's Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and A. Abhishek Reddy had passed a 5-page long order dated February 15, 2024, wherein, it had observed: ''6. Considering the nature of accusation against the appellants/applicants and the materials collected against them, we have not been persuaded to suspend their sentences during the pendency of the appeals. 7. The prayer for suspension of sentence of both the appellants/applicants is, accordingly, rejected. 8. However, considering the period of custody of the appellants/applicants and the mandate of Section 374(4) Cr.P.C., we deem it appropriate to give these appeals an early hearing." The order was authored by Justice Kumar. 

It seems to be a fit case for appeal in the Supreme Court.    

Parties won't pursue matrimonial suit, withdaw cases, Justice Purnendu Singh sets aside judgement by Civil Court, Munger

Patna High Court delivered 15 judgements on September 23, 2025 in Pinku Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., Mohsin Roman vs. The State of Bihar, Sumit Baitha vs. The State of Bihar, M/s Daksha Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company, Lakshman Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Rajeev Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Runa Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, Saryug Mukhiya vs. The State of Bihar, M/s Sonali Sari Showroom vs. The Indian Bank, Munni Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, Gaya Nath Ram vs. The State of Bihar, Indrasani Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Raj Kishore Lal Das vs. The State of Bihar, Ram Deo Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Tuliya Devi vs. The State of Bihar. 

In Pinku Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., Patna High Court's  Justice Purnendu Singh delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 23, 2025 disposing the quashing application. The judgment reads: "Accordingly, entire proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 991(C) of 2021 and also the cognizance order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2nd, Civil Court, Munger, are set aside and quashed." The Opposite Party No. 22 Ranju Kumari.

The High Court heard the application filed for quashing the order dated April 8, 2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2nd, Civil Court, Munger in Complaint Case no. 991(C) of 2021, by which cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 498(A), 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

The counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties informed the Court that a joint compromise petition dated April 16, 2025 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in Criminal Revision No. 607 of 2023 and the same was brought on record, which bore the signature of both petitioner and opposite party no. 2. The parties did not want to pursue the matrimonial suit and they withdrew their respective cases filed against each other. 

The counsel submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 991(C) of 2021 was fit to be set aside and quashed in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 and Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653.

Justice Singh concluded: ''4. In view of the information that respective parties have withdrawn their cases lodged by them against each other and no case is pending before learned District Court, I find that in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as discussed hereinabove, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be abuse of process of law.''

Supreme Court set aside "cryptic order" by Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar in Vandana Gupta case, which resulted in "travesty of justice"

In Victim 'X' vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgement dated July 21, 2025 wherein it allowed the appeal. The judgement was authored by Justice Mehta. The Respondent no. 2 is Vandan Gupta. The Division Bench concluded:"keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in Shabeen Ahmad (supra), we are of the firm opinion that the present case is an exceptional one, wherein the grant of bail by the High Court to respondent No.2-accused by a cryptic order dated 18th January, 2024 has resulted into travesty of justice. Grant of bail to the person accused of such grave offences without assigning reasons shakes the conscience of the Court and would have an adverse impact on the society." 

The judgement reads:"the release of the accused on bail would adversely impact the trial as there would be high chances of the material witnesses being threatened and influenced. Our conclusions are fortified by the fact that respondent No.2-accused has been reinstated to the position of Superintendent of another protection home which speaks volumes about her clout and influence with the administration. 28. Consequently, it is a fit case, warranting exercise of this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere in the impugned order dated 18th January, 2024 which is hereby quashed and set aside. 29. The bail granted to respondent No.2-accused is hereby cancelled. She shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the trial Court shall cancel her bail bonds and ensure that she is taken into custody for the remainder of trial. The trial Court and the District administration shall ensure that proper protection and support is provided to the victims of the case. In case there is any change of circumstances, respondent No.2-accused shall be at liberty to renew her prayer of bail before the appropriate forum."

The appeal arose by special leave emanates from the order dated January 18, 2024 whereby, the appeal preferred by respondent No.2-accused 2 under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19893 was allowed and she was granted bail. The appellant-victim herein was the informant in the FIR. 

The prosecution case as against Vandana Gupta, Respondent No.2 was that she while being posted as the Superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih, Gaighat, Patna indulged in administering intoxicating medicines and injections to the appellant-victim and other female inmates of the protection home, who were later on subjected to sexual exploitation and mental torture. It was alleged that she used to send the ladies housed in the protection home, outside for the purpose of providing sexual favours to influential people. The FIR in the instant case came to be based on the intervention of the High Court which took cognizance of a newspaper report narrating the ordeals faced by the females kept in the protection home. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court.

The Supreme Court recorded that during the course of investigation, few more ladies in addition to the appellant herein made allegations of torture and sexual exploitation against Vanadana Gupta, the respondent No.2. The application for bail was filed by respondent No.2 came to be rejected by the Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Patna6 vide order dated July 10, 2023. Respondent No.2 preferred an
appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court, assailing the order passed by the Special Court. In the meanwhile, chargesheet came to be filed against respondent No.2 in the Special Court which took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 328, 376, 120B, 504, 506 of the IPC, Sections 3/4 of the IT Act and Section 3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act vide order dated August 29, 2023. Notably, in the appeal before the High Court, the appellant-victim was not impleaded as a party, and bail was granted to the accused (respondent No.2) in clear violation of the mandate under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act which makes hearing of the victim in any prayer for bail essential. 

The appellant-victim approached the Supreme Court through the appeal by special leave to assail the order passed by the High Court. Her counsel contended that the High Court granted bail to respondent No.2 by a cryptic order without assigning any reasons whatsoever and totally ignoring the critical fact that respondent No.2 being the Superintendent of the women protection home was a person in authority, who misused her position to exploit the helpless female inmates of the institution and deliberately orchestrated their sexual exploitation by various influential persons. Numerous women inmates have made grave allegations in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that they were sent out of the institution for providing sexual gratification to outsiders and those who resisted, were injected with intoxicants and under the influence thereof, they were subjected to sexual exploitation by different men. It was also contended that unidentified men were allowed access into the protection home where they would take advantage of the helpless condition of the victims so as to gain sexual favours. 

Pursuant to the release of respondent No.2 on bail, she was reinstated in service, and she was heading another protection home within the State of Bihar. This approach of the State authorities in allowing respondent No.2 to continue functioning as a person in-charge of the protection home, despite there being allegations of misuse of power to facilitate sexual exploitation of female inmates would imminently expose the inmates to a grave risk of being subjected to sexual exploitation. He submitted that it was apparent that the concerned authorities of the State Government were hands in glove with the accused and had no intention of punishing respondent No.2 for her recalcitrant conduct. Rather she has been rewarded with a fresh tenure in an identical protection home where she had earlier committed the atrocities on the female inmates. In case, respondent No.2 is allowed to remain on bail, there is an imminent danger of her influencing the witnesses and frustrating the trial. He pointed out that as a matter of fact, numerous threats have already been given to the witnesses of this case and hence, the continuance of respondent No.2 on bail would be detrimental to a fair trial. The counsel for the appellant implored the Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India so as to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2.  

The standing counsel representing respondent No.1-State of Bihar supported the submissions advanced by counsel for the appellant-victim. He contended that after thorough investigation, grave allegations of misuse of official position to exploit the helpless and destitute female inmates housed in the protection home have been substantiated. Respondent No.2 being a person in authority shall definitely influence the fair trial of the case and there was imminent threat to the life and limb of the victim ladies, if respondent No.2 was allowed to continue on bail during the pendency of the trial. However, on a pertinent query being posed,  standing counsel was not in a position to explain the conduct of the State authorities in reinstating respondent No.2-accused and putting her in charge of another women’s home in spite of the fact that she is facing a prosecution for abuse of powers and sexual exploitation while working in a similar institution.

Supreme Court observed: "21. Thus, it is clearly a case, wherein the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil. 22. Not only are the allegations attributed to respondent No. 2-accused are grave and reprehensible in nature, in addition thereto, the fact remains that releasing respondent No. 2 on bail is bound to have an adverse effect on trial because there would be an imminent possibility of the witnesses being threatened."

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's  decisions in Shabeen Ahmad vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) 4 SCC 172 while placing reliance upon the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 wherein it cancelled the bail granted to the accused in a dowry death case observing as follows:
“18.... A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras: “26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [(2004) 7 SCC 525]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [(2009) 14 SCC 286]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 12 SCC 129]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118].

In Vandana Gupta vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar of Patna High Court had passed a 4-page long order dated January 18, 2024 upon hearing an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated July 10, 2023 passed by Exclusive Special Court SC/ST Act, Patna whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Mahila P.S. Case no. 17 of 2022 under Sections 341, 323, 328, 376, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and sections 3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was rejected. The allegation against the appellant who was a Superintendent of Remand Home was that she used to administer intoxicated medicine and injection to the informant/victim and other girls and they were subjected to sexually exploitation and mental torture. It was also alleged that appellant used to send the girls outside and forced them to be sexually exploited. The appellant used to allow entry of unknown male for wrongful purpose. It was submitted by counsel for the appellant that appellant was falsely implicated in this case. She had not taken the caste name of the informant in public view. No offence is made out under the provisions of the SC/ST Act against her. Notably, vide letter No. 836 dated February 16, 2022, one S.I.T. team was constituted for investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2022 and Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 jointly and the investigation was started jointly but after investigation of the case, the police submitted final form No. 100 of 2022 due to insufficiency of evidence which is apparent from Annexure-3 of the petition itself and also the allegation which was alleged by the informant/victim upon this appellant was not found true. 

The Court order recorded that from perusal of the Supervision Report of the S.S.P., Patna dated June 25, 2022, which was annexed in the petition as Annexure-5(page No-36) in which it was mentioned that no any drug abuse and rape/sexual exploitation have been made in that remand home. From perusal of the report of Uttar Raksha Girh, Gayaghat, Patna, it was mentioned in para-5 that the nature of the informant/victim was quarrelsome. Moreover, the appellant was languishing in judicial custody since August 27, 2022. The appeal for bail was opposed by Special P.P. for the State and the counsel for the informant. By way of filing counter affidavit, it was mentioned in para-2 that "another girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. stated that appellant used to send those girls out who don’t have anyone they were sent out if they used to refuse, they were injected with needle and were become unconscious. It was also submitted that from a report of SP, Patna, few men used to come in girh by covering their faces and on the permission of this appellant, those persons entered in the girh without registering their name in register."

Justice Panwar concluded:"....taking into consideration that there is no specific allegation against the appellant, the Court is inclined to allow this appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 is hereby set aside. 8. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail after framing of charge if the charge is not framed in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Court SC/ST Act, Patna."

Quashing this order by Justice Panwar, Supreme Court observed: "25. We may note that the impugned order could have been quashed on the solitary ground of non-compliance of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act which mandates that notice to a victim is essential before a prayer for bail is being considered, in a case where the offence/s under the SC/ST Act have been applied. 26. On going through the memo of appeal filed by the respondent-accused in the High Court, we find that the appellant-victim was not impleaded as a party respondent therein and hence, did not have the benefit of right of hearing as warranted by Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act."