Supreme Court reverses the order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a murder case

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

The petition had questioned the correctness of the order dated October 10, 2025 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court in Aryan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025),  whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already undergone 3 years and 5 months in custody, since he was arrested on February 21, 2023. He drew attention to the Firs Information Report to submit that while the petitioner was named in the first part of the incident which did not cause injury to any person and only a reference to indiscriminate firing was made, there was no reference to the petitioner in the second part of the incident which resulted in the death of four persons. The counsel also drew attention to the fact that identically situated accused are on bail. The counsel further submitted that Bachcha Rai whose name figures in the second part of the incident was also on bail. 

In his order Justice Kumar had concluded:"I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner no. 2, namely, Akhilesh Kumar, as the trial is on the verge of conclusion. 7. So far as the petitioner no. 1, namely, Aryan Kumar is concerned, this Court is inclined to grant bail on medical grounds so that he can get himself properly treated. 8. Accordingly, let the petitioner no. 1, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge IV, Patna City, Patna/ concerned Court in connection with Nadi P.S. Case No. 76 of 2023, subject to the condition that both the bailors should be the close relative of the petitioner no. 1. 9. As a condition of this order, the petitioner no. 1, after being released on bail is directed to co-operate in the trial either by appearing personally or through his lawyer in the trial Court on each and every date fixed in the trial. Noncompliance of the condition will result in cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioner no. 1. 10. The bail application is allowed with regard to petitioner no. 1 and is dismissed with regard to petitioner no. 2. 11. This bail petition stands partly allowed in the above terms." 

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with Nadi P.S. Case No. 76 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 448, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. From the report of the trial Judge, it appeared that out of nine chargesheeted witnesses, five witnesses were examined. 4. From the report of the Medical Officer, Beur Jail, Patna, it appeared that the petitioner no. 1 was seriously ill and he was admitted to PMCH again and again for his treatment. Notably, e. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioners were rejected by Justice Kumar by his order dated March 5, 2024. He had concluded: "Considering the fact that it is a case of four murders, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners."

"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 extends time by six months for disposal of trial at Khagaria Court's request

In Anuj Yadav Devi vs. The State Of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and N. K. Singh passed an order dated August 8, 2025. It reads:'A letter has been received from Additional Sessions Judge – II, Khagaria, Bihar forwarded by High Court of Patna, requesting therein to extend the time for six months to dispose of the trial. As prayed for, the time for disposal of the trial is extended by six months. The Miscellaneous Application stands allowed.' The case was taken up by Courts Motion. 

Prior to this in its order dated December 13, 2024, Court's Division Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar had passed an order which reads: 'We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, taking into consideration the fact that the trial has already begun, we request the Trial court to expedite the hearing and conclude the same within a period of six months from today. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.' This SLP arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated December 8, 2023 passed by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah of Patna High Court.

In Anuj Yadav Devi vs. The State Of Bihar (2023), Justice Shah had passed a 3-page long order dated December 8, 2023. The order reads: 'The present petition is by way of second attempt at the behest of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Khagaria (Mufassil) P.S. Case No.206 of 2018, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 448 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, inasmuch as the earlier prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by this Court by an order dated 17.01.2023, passed in Cr.Misc.No. 60192 of 2022.' The case of the prosecution, was that on April 4, 2018 at about 5 pm, the petitioner and other co-accused persons had arrived at the house of the informant, snatched ornaments and had taken away the mare and had also asked the informant to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh for release of the mare. For the aforesaid incident, an FIR against the accused persons had been lodged by the mother of the informant on April 6, 2018. Again, on April 7, 2018, at about 6 am, while the brother of the petitioner was returning after attending the call of nature, the petitioner and other co-accused persons armed with rifle surrounded the brother of the informant and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he had fired with a rifle on the right eye of the brother of the informant resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot, whereafter other accused persons had also engaged in overt act. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was languishing in custody since May 12, 2022, but there was no progress in the ongoing trial, hence a sympathetic view be taken for the purposes of grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

Justice Shah's order reads: 'considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the materials available on record this Court finds that not only the petitioner is the main assailant, who had fired gunshots on the brother of the informant, resulting in his instantaneous death, but there is also no change in the circumstances so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, thus I do not find any merit in the present petition, hence the same stands dismissed.'