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 part of conditional bail order by Justice Purnendu Singh

In Mithilesh Kumar Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan passed a 3-page long order dated February 13, 2026 wherein, it concluded:".....we set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which the High Court has directed the petitioner to appear before the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of mediation. 9. The rest of the part of the order granting anticipatory bail is not touched." 

The Supreme Court recorded that "there are some civil litigations also pending between the parties." Justice Singh too had observed:"4. Considering the nature of dispute to be purely civil in nature and the parties are contesting Civil Suit No. 135 of 2024 for specific performance of contract since 17.03.2025, at
the same time, I find that the parties can resolve their dispute outside the Court amicably by way of mediation. 5. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Court on 25.09.2025 at 10.30 am." As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner and his son had committed forgery with the informant by receiving Rs. 55 lacs for executing a piece of land appertaining to Khata No. 130, Khesra Nos. 220 measuring total area two Bigha.

Notably, Justice Purnendu Singh had passed a 3-page long order dated September 10, 2025, wherein, he had concluded: "6. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary action to refer the matter before the learned mediator of the District Mediation Center. 7. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute amicably between the parties and thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a period of three months, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case.8. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to appear on 25.09.2025 at 10.30 am. before the learned District Court or on any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force. 9. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. 10. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of."

Supreme Court observed:"6. The High Court thought fit to grant anticipatory bail but at the same time directed the petitioner to go for mediation. 7. We are of the view that once the High Court was convinced that a case was made out for grant of anticipatory bail, then the Court should not have asked the petitioner-accused to go for mediation." 

The petitioner, an aged person, had prayed for anticipatory bail before the High Court in connection with a Khanpur Police Station case of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(1), 308(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, respectively.  Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner was one of forgery and cheating. 

 

 

Justice Jitendra Kumar directs National Insurance Company to pay enhanced compensation

In Shila Devi & Anr.vs. Raja Ram Dokania & Ors. (2025), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 25-page long judgement dated November 7, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"....the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to pay the said amount of Rs.6,92,648/- to the appellants within two months, failing which the respondent No.3/Insurance Company would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum. This amount must be paid by way of account payee cheque or Bank Draft in the name of the appellant No.1, Shila Devi." The Respondent No. 3 is Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Bhagalpur.

The Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred against the impugned judgment/award dated August 5,  2019 passed by learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Bhagalpur in Claim Case of 2017, whereby M.A.C.T., Bhagalpur had directed the insurance company, who was the Respondent No.3 , to pay an amount of Rs. 6,33,000/- to the claimants, who were Appellants, as compensation on account of death of one Ashu Raj Kumar @ Ashu Raj @ Shrawan Kumar in a motor accident along with interest @ 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The payment of Rs. 50,000/-already made towards interim compensation was directed to be adjusted against the total compensation amount and the compensation was directed to be paid within sixty days from the date of the order.

The counsel for the Appellants submitted that the total compensation amount as directed by Tribunal was already received by the Appellants from the insurance company. However, being dissatisfied by the quantum of the compensation, the Appellants preferred the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act for getting enhanced compensation. 

In the course of pendency of this appeal, the Appellant No.2, Pappu Thakur died. Hence, he was substituted by his legal heir, Champa Devi, who is his married daughter. The other legal heir Shila Devi (wife of Pappu Thakur) was already Appellant No.1. 

The factual background of this case is that on March 29, 2017, an accident took place involving a tanker resulting into death of one Ashu Raj Kumar @ Ashu Raj @ Shrawan Kumar, son of the claimants Shila Devi and Pappu Thakur. Subsequently, Rajoun P.S. Case No. 104 of 2017 was registered on 29.03.2017 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC against the driver and the owner of the aforesaid tanker. As per further averment in the claim petition, the deceased Ashu Raj Kumar @ Ashu Raj @ Shrawan Kumar was traveling in an auto-rickshaw which was dashed by the said tanker on account of rash and negligent driving. The deceased is alleged to be 19 years of age at the time of death and he was unmarried and working as a private tutor earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was further claimed that the offending tanker was insured with National Insurance Company Limited at the relevant time of accident vide the policy no.171000/31/16/6300002116 effective from 10.07.2016 to 09.07.2017 covering the date of accident on 29.03.2017. 

The Appellants, Shila Devi and Pappu Thakur filed the claim case no. 98 of 2017 on 11.05.2017 for compensation of Rs. 16,16,000/- impleading the driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company. On notice, all the three Opposite Parties appeared, but the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, who were owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, did not file any written statement. However, the insurance company, who was the Opposite Party No.3 before the Tribunal, filed its written statement. However, no application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the insurance company seeking permission to contest the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the Claimants and the Insurance Company, the following six issues were
framed:
“(i) Whether the claim case is maintainable? 
(ii) Whether the claimants have valid cause of action for the present claim case?
(iii) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle?
(iv)Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation as prayed for?
(v). Whether the offending vehicle was insured at the time of alleged incident?
(vi) Whether the driver has valid license at the time of accident?”

The Judgement recorded that nobody was present on behalf of the Respondent No.3, insurance company, despite valid service of notice.

The counsel for the Appellants submitted that he had no dispute with the finding by the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased @ Rs. 200/- per day. However, no addition to income has been made towards future prospect. He also submitted that Tribunal has applied multiplier of only 16, whereas it should have been 18 and hence, the loss of dependency has been determined on the lower side. Even the quantum of compensation under the conventional heads has been granted on the lower side. Hence, the Appellants could not get just compensation.

The counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested the submission of counsel for the appellants submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment/award and the appellants are not entitled to get any higher quantum of compensation. He also submitted that the Respondent Nos. 1 and
2, being owner and driver of the vehicle and the vehicle being insured with Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, were not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. 

Justice Kumar opined that the Tribunal had rightly directed the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the appellants and which was already paid to the appellants. 
But nobody was present on behalf of the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, despite valid service of
notice.

The High Court inferred that the following points arose for determination:-
(i) Whether there should be any addition to the income of the deceased towards future prospect while calculating the loss of dependency?
(ii) What should be the appropriate multiplier in the case on hand ?
(iii) Whether the appellants are entitled to get higher quantum of compensation under conventional heads?
(iv) What should be the quantum of just compensation ?

The Court dealt with the law regarding just compensation. It recollected Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 2 SCC 770 with regard to assessment of compensation in cases of death. In this judgment, the Court has laid down principles to provide uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation. The principles as laid down in Sarla Verma Case (supra) were subsequently modified and improved by the Court in subsequent judgments which are as follows:
(i) Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65
(ii) Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud, (2019) 5 SCC 554
(iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680
(iv) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 

These landmark judgments have been referred the Court's decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 providing complete prevailing law regarding assessment of compensation in cases of death arising out of Motor Vehicle Accident. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as follows:
“Relevant principles for assessment of compensation in cases of death as evolved by judicial dicta.
11. The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing compensation in the case of death are : (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependants left behind by the
deceased; and (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death.

In Sarla Verma vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 this Court held that to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal ought to take into consideration three factors: (SCC p. 132, para 18)
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

13. In order to provide uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation, the following steps are required to be followed : Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121
“Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) 
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be
selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a Table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of
dependency” to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the
deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.”
(a) Deduction for personal and living expenses
14. The personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the
contribution to the family. In Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court took the view that it was necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, it was held that:
14.1. Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd if the number of dependant family members is two to three.
14.2. 1/4th if the number of dependant family members is four to six.
14.3. 1/5th if the number of dependant family members exceeds six.
14.4. If the deceased was a bachelor, and the claim was filed by the parents, the deduction would normally be 50% as personal and living expenses of the bachelor. Subject to evidence to the contrary, the father was likely to have his own income, and would not be considered to be a dependant. Hence, the mother alone will be considered to be a dependant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered to be dependants, because they would usually either be independent and earning, or married, or dependant on the father. Thus, even if the deceased was survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant. The deduction towards personal expenses of a bachelor would be 50%, and 50% would be the contribution to the family.
14.5. However, in a case where the family of the bachelor was large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he had a widowed mother, and a large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses could be restricted to 1/3rd, and contribution to the family be taken as 2/3rd.

Justice Kumar concluded: "29. Hence, total compensation payable to the Claimants/Appellants would work out to be Rs.13,25,648/-(12,15,648+15,000+80,000+15,000). As per the pleading of the parties, the claimants/appellants have already received Rs.6,33,000/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled to get balance
amount of Rs.6,92,648/- (13,25,648-6,33,000). 30. Hence, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to pay the said amount of Rs.6,92,648/- to the appellants within two months, failing which the respondent No.3/Insurance Company would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum. This amount must be paid by way of account payee cheque or Bank Draft in the name of the appellant No.1, Shila Devi."

Supreme Court issues notice against Justice Sandeep Kumar's denial of bail in an Examination Scam Case

Upon hearing the special leave to appeal in Aditya Kumar @ Anshu vs. The State of Bihar Through Economic Offences Wong (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih issued notice, returnable on December 8, 2025. Its 2-page long order dated October 3, 2025 reads:'' 2. Respondent-State of Bihar may file its counter affidavit at least 48 hours prior to the returnable date. Such affidavit ought to include, inter alia, the 1following: (i) Particulars of chargesheet, if filed; (ii) Number of witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution;(iii) Whether charge has been framed or not; (iv) If the charge has not been framed/the trial has not commenced, as the case may be, the reason therefor; (v) If the trial has commenced, the number of witnesses examined and; (vi) Any other information relevant for a decision on the special leave petition.'' 

Upon hearing in Aditya Kumar @ Anshu vs. The State of Bihar Through Economic Offences Wong (2025), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed a 7-page long order dated August 6, 2025, wherein, he was "not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with an Economic Offence P.S. case of 2024 registered for the offence under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) read with section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, under sections 66, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under sections 3 and 10 of the Bihar Public Examination Act, 2024.

According to the prosecution case, the informant namely, Kumar Veer Dhirendra, had submitted a written report to the officer-In-charge of the Economic Offence Police Station, Patna stating therein that pursuant to the advertisement of the Bihar State Health Society, for the recruitment of 4,500 Community Health Officers, a computer based test was scheduled for December 1, 2024 and December 2, 2024. On November 30, 2024, the Economic Offence Unit, received confidential information that some malpractice is being done in the examination and thereafter, a team was constituted under the leadership of the D.I.G., EOU, Bihar for verifying the said information. While collecting intelligence, it was found that a cheating racket infiltrated the examination system and the owner of the examination centre, Superintendents, IT Managers, IT support staffs, invigilators, and employees of ‘We Shine Tech’, the company which was conducting the examination, were actively involved in facilitating this fraud. Thereafter, on December 1, 2024 the EOU team raided Ekam Evolutions Private Limited Examination Centre, Ashopur and it was found that a proxy server was installed, enabling unauthorized remote access to the examination computers. The centre owner and IT Manager namely, Amit Kumar and Adarsh Raj were present there. Realizing the situation, the officials of the E.O.U. secured the said place and proceeded to inspect other Examination Centres. Upon reaching at Wire Online Exam Centre, R.K. Puram, they found that even there the proxy server had been illegally connected to the network, enabling unauthorized remote access. Upon questioning, the Superintendent of the aforesaid Examination Centre namely, Ravi Bhushan failed to give any satisfactory reply regarding these irregularities. Thereafter, the team proceeded to ACME Institute of Information Technology, located on Ghordoud Road, Patna and after a technical inspection it was found that there was an unauthorized additional lease line and some articles were also recovered which indicated towards the fraudulent activities taking place there. When the suspected persons including the petitioner, who was deputed as an Examination Coordinator, did not disclose any detail regarding the scam, a search was conducted at all Examination Centres and the seized articles were sent for forensic examination. 

Thereafter, another round of questioning was done at the centres and search was also conducted through videography and some articles were seized and four persons were apprehended. Thereafter, the team inspected and raided several Examination Centres and also found irregularities and seized the incriminating articles and detained the suspects. After an intense interrogation, the apprehended persons, confessed to their involvement in the said crime during the examination of the Community Health Officer and they further gave their modus operandi that they had installed an unauthorized lease line at the Examination Centres, allowing them to remotely access the systems using software such as ‘Ammyy Admin’. During the confession, the apprehended persons also disclosed that 12 Examination Centres across Patna were compromised in this manner. 

On the basis of the above written report, the Police drew up a formal first information report and registered a case being Economic Offence Unit Patna P.S.Case No.28 of 2024 dated December 2, 2024.

Justice Kumar observed:''....it appears that the petitioner is involved in the examination scam. The petitioner is the room partner of co-accused Ashish Ranjan, I.T. Manager at Wire Online Examination Centre, R.K. Puram, Patna, who has stated that the petitioner is also involved in the examination scam. Thereafter, the flat of said Ashish Ranjan and present petitoiner was searched, from where A.T.M. cards, mobile phones, cheque books, Aadhar Cards and other documents were recovered. During investigation, it has come that the petitioner had got the Ammyy Admin Application installed in the computers of the examination centre through co-accused Ashish Ranjan.''

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.''