Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh

In Md. Kasim vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 4-page long order dated February 19, 2026, wherein, it set aside order dated March 19, 2025 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh. Patna High Court  has dismissed the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest. 

The appellant figured as an accused in Complaint Case of 2016 dated 22nd November, 2016 under Sections 504, 406, 420, 384, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Supreme Court observed;"6. We are conscious that process has been initiated for declaring the appellant as a proclaimed offender owing to the fact that he was absconding for quite some time; however, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the appellant is directed to appear before the trial magistrate on each and every date, unless exempted. Ordered accordingly. 7. In such view of the matter, the appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment and order is set aside. 8. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail on terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court. 9. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court. Also, it is made clear that unless exempted, the appellant shall appear in person before the trial magistrate on each and every day. If there be any breach, the protection granted hereby shall cease to operate."

Justice Singh's order rejected the petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is dismissed as not maintainable. It had recorded the State's counsel that "petitioner has been declared absconder and process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him to ensure his appearance in the Court as such petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail (Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730, State of MP v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 17)

.

Supreme Court sets aside bail denial order by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan

In Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Suryakant and Joymalya Bagchi  passed a 4-page long order dated October 31, 2025, wherein, it granted leave and set aside the 2-page long order dated March 17, 2025 by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court. The Supreme Court concluded:"It is, however, not in dispute that further investigation is still going on and the appellant, after he was subjected to custodial interrogation, is presently lodged in judicial custody. In such circumstances, when investigation is yet to be completed, the conclusion of trial will doubtless take some time, and the appellant has already served some time in custody, it seems to us that the appellant can be released on bail at this stage. 3. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. "

The appellant had prayed for enlargement on bail in FIR of 2019 registered at P.S. Bettiah Town, District West Champaran under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120(B)/34 IPC and Section 3 of the Bihar Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2002. The appellant, his brother and other family members had constituted a Cooperative Society, known as SWARN lndia Multi State Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd.. The investors were allured to invest in the Society with a promise of handsome returns. The amounts so deposited were, however, allegedly misappropriated; leading to registration of multiple FIRs against the appellant, his brother and other associates. The subject FIR was one of those cases in which the appellant was arrested on January 16, 2024. There were about nine other cases registered against him. The appellant claimed that he was neither a Director nor an authorised signatory of a bank account of the Society.  The State counsel pointed out that as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the appellant was the Managing Director of the Society. 

Upon hearing the case in the High Court, Justice Sharan noted that the petitioner along with other co-accused were said to have defalcated the money of the customers deposited in the Company Swarn India Multi Estate Credit Cooperative Society Limited. APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail petition. Justice Sharam concluded: "6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at present." Supreme Court has set aside this order.  

Justice Arvind Singh Chandel orders re-consideration dismissal order

In Dilip Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Arvind Singh Chandel concluded:"Considering the submissions made by both the counsels, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the respondents who shall re-consider the order of dismissal of the petitioner in the light of mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases so referred earlier herein. It is further directed that the competent authority will exercise and conclude the proceeding as early as possible probably within 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Court and pass a reasoned order." It added that the petitioner was granted a liberty to approach the Court again if occasion will arise subsequently. The petition was disposed of. The judgement was delivered on May 1, 2025.

The  petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction or directions in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concerned respondents to set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2016 dismissing the petitioner passed by the S.P. Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Departmental Proceeding and also set aside the impugned order passed by the DIG Shahabad Range in appeal of petitioner on 23.12.2016. He also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concerned authorities to reinstate the petitioner on his own post with all consequential benefits, in term of his acquittal in alleged Criminal Case by the Trial Court. He sought issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concerned respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his own post with all consequential benefits, in term of his acquittal in alleged criminal case by the Trial Court as the others have been benefited in similar matter in respect of High Court's order/judgments as well as Supreme Court Judgments. 

The other respondents are: Director General-Cum- I.G. of Police, Bihar, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shahabad Range, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas. Superintendent of Police, Kaimur (Bhabhua). The counsel submitted that the matter of the petitioner is squarely covered with the observations made in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors. 1999 (3) SCC 379, G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 446 and Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2024 (1) SCC. 

These referred judgment passed by the Supreme Court, which has been relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also in the case of Prakash Kumar Paswan vs. The State of Bihar in CWJC No. 4084 of 2020.

...