Justice Valluri Kameswar Rao all set to be 49th Chief Justice of Patna High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on August 6, 2026 has recommended elevation of Justice Valluri Kameswar Rao as the 49th Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. Justice Rao is currently serving on the Delhi High Court. He served as the judge of Karnataka High court from June 1, 2024 to May 29 2025 where he also served as Acting Chief Justice from May 29, 2025, until his repatriation to Delhi High Court on July 21, 2025. 

Before his repatriation to Delhi High Court, on July 14, 2025, as Acting Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court as part of a Division Bench Justice Rao directed the state government to file a status report on the probe into the alleged police encounter of Ritesh Kumar (35), a migrant laborer from Bihar who had been accused of raping and murdering a young girl in Hubballi. The police had shot dead the accused on April 13, 2025 within hours of the offence. Police claimed that he was killed while attempting to escape custody or during an attack on officers, shortly after his apprehension. Justice Rao passed the order upon hearing a petition filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Karnataka. The PUCL had moved the High Court with a prayer to direct the authorities to preserve the body of the deceased so that the evidence as may be required during the investigation is available, and if the body is cremated, the evidence would be lost and the rule of law would suffer. It was also prayed to issue directions to form a special team of autopsy, surgeons, and forensic experts, preferably from New Delhi or a state other than Karnataka, to undertake an independent examination and to do an autopsy of the dead bodies of both the deceased and the victim. The court directed the authorities to preserve the samples of the parts of the body collected during the autopsy to be made available as may be required for investigation. The court also directed the authorities to videograph the entire postmortem procedure. The Supreme Court laid down the guidelines in its judgment of 2014 to be observed by the police and other authorities in police encounter cases resulting in the death of persons. On March 2, 2026, the High Court directed an independent judicial inquiry, to be conducted by a judicial magistrate, into the alleged police encounter killing. A judicial inquiry was mandatory in cases of encounter deaths. The case was listed on June 8, 2026. Hubballi's alleged encounter has left many questions unanswered, it raises concerns over bypassing of due process. Justice Rao's role was crucial to the case of the Bihari migrant worker, which has sent a chilling message directed at the growing migrant population. 

In his first judgement April 29, 2013 as judge of the Delhi High Court in Ramesh Kumar vs.  Commissioner of Police & Ors. Anr. (2013), as part of a Division Bench, he delivered a judgement dated April 29, 2013, wherein, he dismissed the writ petition of  the petitioner, the Inspector (Investigation), P.S Lajpat Nagar (South District), New Delhi, who was suspended on August 7, 2007 and thereafter departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The petitioner had helped a person accused in FIR No.705/2007 namely Bala Singh for offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 420, 468, 471, 506/34, IPC, P.S. Lajpat Nagar, to grab Naveen Kumar Bhatia's property in Lajpat Nagar. The proceedings initiated against the Inspector had culminated in a punishment order whereby the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty of forfeiture of three years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay. The appeal filed against the order was rejected by the appellate authority. The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 

Justice Rao drew on "Wednesbury unreasonableness test" enunciated in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223) for administrative law and the principles laid down in Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) vs. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, the famous GCHQ case. The Wedensbury test applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. This test refers to the scope of Judicial review if the case at hand passes the principles that the administrative action is (i) illegal , (ii) suffers from procedural improprieties, (iii) relevant matters not taken into account, (iv) irrelevant matters are taken into account. Under such circumstances, the administrative action will be considered as absurd or perverse or not bonafide and the administrative action is liable for judicial review. The CCSU Principle accepts the principles enunciated in the Wedensbury test but adds one more dimension that (v) if the administrative action defies logic, then there is scope for judicial review.

Justice Rao concluded: "....what has been proved is that the petitioner had made 79 plus 4 calls to Bala Singh for about one month prior to registration of FIR and few days thereafter. He could not prove that he had any family or friendly relationship with Bala Singh nor he could be able to prove that Bala Singh was a police informer. There is no reason for him to engage himself in conversation with Bala Singh on so many occasions. This would not, as observed by the Tribunal, 'augur well for a police officer'. To that extent, the punishment imposed on the petitioner would not be disproportionate. 9. Hence, we are of the view that the present petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed." The judgement was authored by Justice Rao.  

On his request, Justice Rao was transferred to the Karnataka High Court. 

In Smt. Mohini Kumari. A vs. The Commissioner & Ors. (2024), as part of the Division bench of the Karnataka High Court, passed an order dated June 26, 2024, wherein, he set aside the order dated April 3, 2018 by a Single Judge bench because he was of the view that "the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion" regarding the direction for appointment of Smt. Chetana Rogannavar Rajaram. Smt. Mohini Kumari, the appellant had challenged the impugned order on the ground that, she was not made a party in the proceedings, although she had applied for the post of Typist with all necessary documents. Her application was considered by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education Department, Bengaluru, the respondent and she was selected. The Job Oriented Course (JOC) possessed by Smt. Rajaram was not declared as equivalent to that of Pre-University Course (PUC), by Government of Karnataka, the respondent no. 1. Justice Rao concluded that the impugned order of the Single Judge suffers from legal infirmity.

Justice Rao enrolled as an advocate in March, 1991. He was designated as senior advocate by the Delhi High Court in January, 2010. He was elevated as Additional Judge of Delhi High Court on April 17, 2013 and as permanent judge on March 18, 2015. He was transferred as a judge of Karnataka High Court and assumed office on June 1, 2024. Justice Rao's roots of the family that is Andhra Pradesh, which his father left in the year 1954 and went to Delhi with his mother whom he married in 1951. 

Justice Rao disapproves of sealed cover jurisprudence which leads to a culture of opacity because a one-sided submission causes serious violation of natural justice.

Justice Soni Shrivastava orders no coercive action against POCSO accused, FIR was filed afte 37 days

In Rocky Kumar @ Rauki Kumar vs. .The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Soni Shrivastava passed a 2-page long order dated July 29, 2026, wherein, she directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in a case  under Section 376(D), 506/34 of IPC, section 3(i) (r) (S) (W) (1)/3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act and section 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused petitioner Rocky Kumar. The case is listed on September 2, 2026. 

Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not sent up for trial and a final report was filed in his favour. However, during trial, summons has been issued under Section 358 of the B.N.S.S. The victim has filed the complaint after 37 days. Brajesh Kumar, the main accused is facing trial in the Court of Ravindra Kumar, District and Additional Sessions-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Sheikhpura who was in love with the victim. The petitioner had been named only because he used to study with the main accused in Biharsharif. 

Justice Shrivastava concluded:"4. In such view of the matter, issue notice to the opposite party no.2 by ordinary process as well as speed post with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within a week from today. 5. Call for a legible copy of the case diary along with the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. from the Court of learned District and Additional Sessions-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Sheikhpura, in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 50 of 2023....7.In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken "against the petitioner in the aforesaid case till further orders.

The prosecution case, in brief as per the written report of the informant namely Kiran Devi is that, on August 3, 2023 at about 2 PM, when her daughter/victim was feeding cattle near her house, accused persons Brajesh Raut and Rocky Kumar on a gunpoint grabbed the informant daughter's hand with bad intention and taken her to the abandoned house of Sanjay Raut through the Bathan of Uday Raut. When informant's daughter shouted, accused persons started threatening to kill her and gagged her mouth with a Gamchha. The accused persons one by one raped the informant's daughter due to which she became unconscious. After a while when she did not return, informant went to search her and when she reached near the house of Sanjay Raut, saw that accused Brajesh Kumar and Rocky Kumar were fleeing from the house of Sanjay Raut. The informant's another daughter Priti Kumari went inside the house and saw that informant's daughter victim girl was lying half naked and unconscious. After the incident, the victim was not in a state of sound mind to speak and remained quiet. After a long period of time, she told about the incident to her family members. The case was registered after 37 days. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is quite innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. It was submitted that the petitioner bears no criminal antecedent. It was prayed that petitioner may be given benefit of pre-arrest bail. 

Supreme Court modifies order by Satyavrat Verma which said "if charge-sheet is submitted against the petitioner, anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect...."

In Mohammad Umair vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan passed an order dated April 30, 2026, wherein, it observed:"The fact that the High Court was satisfied and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner indicates that a case for relief had been made out.  However, pausing here, the High Court may be correct to the extent that at that point of time, because the police had not found the case true against the petitioner as there was no charge sheet, an observation could have been made that once the Investigating Agency finds evidence against the petitioner, the scenario would change. To this extent, we agree. However, directing that the order granting anticipatory bail shall loose its effect and the petitioner would be arrested, is totally improper. The High Court could have directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court and then, seek bail in the matter, once the charge sheet is submitted." 

It added:"7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.40437 of 2024 is modified to the extent that paragraphs no.4 and 6 of the said impugned order, which directs that if the charge sheet is submitted against the petitioner, in that event, the anticipatory bail order shall loose its effect and the Trial Court shall take all coercive steps to ensure that he is behind bar, are set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court within two weeks from today and seek bail, which shall be considered, in accordance with law." The Supreme Court condoned the delay before hearing the SLP. 

The petitioner was aggrieved by the observation made by Justice Verma in his 3-page long order dated August 2, 2024 which though, had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR No.5109051240051 of 2024 dated January 18, 2024, registered at P.S. Mufassil Thana, Disrict Gaya, Bihar, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 337, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 but with the stipulation that if the charge sheet is submitted against the petitioner, in that event, the said order dated 02.08.2024 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner shall loose its effect and the Trial Court shall take all coercive steps to ensure that the petitioner is behind bar.

Also read: Supreme Court modifies conditional anticipatory bail order by Justice  Satyavrat Verma 

Rajiv Kumar Virmani, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that such condition was absolutely unwarranted and causes prejudice to the petitioner in a manner not authorised by law. It was submitted that once the Court had taken a call and was satisfied that a person was entitled to anticipatory bail, merely submission of a charge sheet, should not ipso facto change the situation and make him liable to be arrested. 

Anshul Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar submitted that such condition may not be proper.

Supreme Court considered the matter in its entirety, and found force in the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar.

Justice Verma's order reads: "5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Gaya Mufassil P.S. Case No. 51 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. 6. However, it is made clear that if charge-sheet is submitted against the petitioner, in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect and the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps to ensure that petitioner is behind bar. 7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya is also directed to ensure that the case is investigated with all promptness." This order has been modified by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court. The Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan had passed a similar order dated April 24, 2026.  

 Also read: Supreme Court modifies conditional anticipatory bail order by Justice  Satyavrat Verma

 

Marriage between Manish Kumar and Ruchi Sinha stands dissolved: Supreme Court

In Manish Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 11-page long order dated April 8, 2026, wherein it recorded that the terms of the settlement have been acknowledged . The complainant-wife (Ruchi Sinha) submitted that she does not want to continue with any of the cases filed, either civil  or criminal, and want divorce by mutual consent since the amount as referred to in the settlement agreement has been received by her. The appellant-Manish Kumar also agreed to by the terms of the settlement and submitted that in view of those terms, all criminal and civil cases pending between the parties may be quashed/disposed of and decree of divorce by mutual consent may be ordered.

The judgement reads: "In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the settlement agreement and to dispose of this criminal appeal and I. A. No. 94649 of 2026 with the following directions: (a) As submitted, the appellant-husband has paid Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs) as agreed to in the settlement agreement, the receipt whereof is acknowledged by the complainant/respondent No.2- wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including alimony, stridhan, dowry articles, maintenance
(past, present, future). (b) All criminal and civil cases as mentioned in the settlement agreement be treated as quashed/ disposed of and be consigned to the record. (c) Since the criminal proceedings have been quashed, the bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged. (d) Accepting the terms of the settlement and as consented to by the parties, on their request, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we grant decree of divorce by mutual consent. Consequently, the marriage between the appellant-husband(Manish Kumar) and respondent No.2-wife (Ruchi Sinha) shall stand dissolved. By an outcome of the dissolution of marriage, the parties are set free to lead their lives separately as per their own will. 8) The settlement agreement be treated as part of this Order."

The appellant had assailed the order dated October 16, 2023 passed by the High Court rejecting his application for grant of anticipatory bail. The appellant had preferred the appeal seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 106 of 2022 dated August 25, 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Mahila, Sub-Division Sadar, District Patna, Bihar. Vide order dated August 28, 2025, at the request made by the counsel for the parties, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. In mediation, the parties have settled their differences and disputes amicably and settlement agreement dated February 27, 2026 has been entered into which is received vide communication dated March 10, 2026 from the Mediation Centre. The parties had also filed Interlocutory Application No. 94649 of 2026 seeking dissolution of marriage in view of the said settlement.

The terms of the settlement as decided are as under:

“1. DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE: The Parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage. They jointly pray before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized between them.
ALIMONY / MAINTENANCE (FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT): The Second Party/Husband has agreed to pay a total sum of 4,00,000/-(Rupees four Lakhs Only) to the First Party/Wife as a full and final settlement against all the claims of First Party/Wife, including but not limited to past, present, and future maintenance, alimony, stridhan, dowry articles, and any other claims whatsoever arising out of the matrimonial relationship.

MODE AND TIME OF PAYMENT: The aforesaid amount of 4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakhs Only) shall be paid by the Second Party/Husband to the First Party/Wife drawn in the name of " RUCHI SINHA" by way of account payee cheque bearing Cheque No. "000024" dated January 27, 2026. The said account payee cheque shall be handed over to the First Party/Wife after she will execute/sign the present agreement. The agreement shall be considered complete and binding upon the parties after the parties shall execute this agreement and the money shall be credited in the bank account of First party/Wife. If the cheque shall be dishonored then the agreement shall become null and void.

WITHDRAWAL/QUASHING OF PENDING LITIGATION: The Parties jointly pray before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to quash the followings things by mutual consent by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, these are:- (1) to quash the FIR bearing FIR No. 106/2022 registered at Mahila P.S., District-Patna under section 498A /506/34 IPC and u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (2) to quash the chargesheet u/s 498A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Second party/Husband and his three relatives who are named in the FIR namely Kamla Devi Verma (the mother of Second Party/Husband), Poonam Kumari(the elder sister of Second Party/Husband) and Mithlesh Kumar (the husband of elder sister of Second party/Husband), (3) to quash the cognizance order and entire case pending before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patna who took cognizance u/s 498 A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition against the Second party/Husband and his above three stated relatives. 

The Parties mutually agree that the case pending before the Hon'ble FAMILY COURTS, Patna Bihar and other courts of India alongwith all cases, complaints, and proceedings (civil and criminal) filed by them against each other and/or their family members and relatives, if any, shall be withdrawn, compounded, or quashed. The Parties undertake to fully cooperate with each other and file necessary joint applications, petitions, and affidavits and make requisite statements before the concerned courts/authorities for the purpose of withdrawing/quashing all the cases.

NO FUTURE CLAIMS OR LITIGATION: The Parties solemnly undertake that upon the complete execution of the terms of this Agreement, they shall have no further claims or demands of any nature whatsoever against each other or their respective family members, relatives, heirs, and assigns, relating, to their marriage. They further undertake not to initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against each other or their family members in the future with respect to this matrimonial alliance.

6. RETURN OF BELONGINGS: The Parties confirm that there are no pending claims against each other regarding any movables. immovables, jewelry, stridhan, dowry articles, or personal belongings, and all such issues have been amicably resolved.

7. MUTUAL UNDERTAKING OF NON-INTERFERENCE: Both Parties undertake not to interfere in
the personal, social or professional life of the other Party in any manner whatsoever. They shall not communicate witheach other through any medium (electronic or otherwise) and shall not make any defamatory or derogatory statements against each other or their families.

8. MUTUAL RELEASE OF LEGAL CLAIMS, LIABILITIES AGAINST EACH OTHER: Both the parties hereby agreed and acknowledged that they shall not, at any point and anywhere, initiate or pursue any legal claim, demand, or action against each other, and that neither shall hold any liability towards the other. Each party shall be free to submit, at their own discretion, the documents pertaining to their divorce or decree before the authority concerned, if any, in order to maintain proper record and to avoid any future complications or misunderstandings among them with respect to this matrimonial alliance.

9. VOLUNTARY AND BINDING AGREEMENT: The parties declare that they have entered into this Settlement Agreement after fully understanding its terms and implications. They confirm that this agreement is the result of then-own free will and consent and is not vitiated by any coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their legal heirs, executors, and assigns.

10. VOLUNTARILY CHANGE THE NAME OF MANISH KUMAR AS HER HUSBAND BY THE FIRST PARTY-The first party/Wife shall change all her documents where she has mentioned her husband name as Manish Kumar like Aadhar card, Voter Id, PAN card, Bank details, ration cards, passports, driving licence, etc.

11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties and supersedes all prior discussions and agreements. No modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by both Parties.

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.