Supreme Court upholds order by Justice Soni Shrivastava refusing grant of anticipatory bail

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 2-page long order dated August 25, 2025 in the case related to a scam in the University and the alleged financial defraud by all the petitioners. . It reads:”It is also a fact that the special leave petitions preferred by Mr. Jitendra Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.7000/2025 @ D.No.22186/2025), Mr. Manoj Gupta(SLP (Crl.) No. 7168/2025 @ D.No. 24324/2025), Dr. Ashok Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.8245/2025 @ D.No.27267/2025) and Mr. Sunil Agarwal(SLP (Crl.) No.8215/2025 @ D.No.27269 of 2025) asking pre-arrest bail have been rejected by this Court. 2) Considering all these aspects, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand rejected….3) However, the officers are at liberty to take recourse as permissible.” The special leave to appeal (Criminal) arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated April 17, 2025 in Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar passed by the Patna High Court. 

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar (2025), in her 7-page long order dated April 17, 2025, Justice Soni Srivastava of Patna High Court had concluded:”…it appears that there is strong allegation of conspiracy as against the present petitioner showing his involvement and also considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been denied the anticipatory bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 74836 of 2024, Vide order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32493 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 22548 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 33718 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 31143 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32191 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32719 of 2024 and Cr. Misc. No. 83228 of 2024 and also considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (Supra), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is hereby, rejected. 12. This application stands dismissed.” 

Justice Srivastava referred to Supreme Court’s paragraphs 23-26 of the decision in Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (CRL). No.3247 of 2025) reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291. It reads:  “23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of the public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the Courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature of aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, the Court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant- accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the un-savoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long". In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell. because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order; then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.” 

The petitioner had approached the Court apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 48 of 2021 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021 registered under sections 109, 120B, 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (b) r/w 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, while working as the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya hatched a criminal conspiracy with the assistance of Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University, the Registrar, Patliputra University private firms namely, Ms Poorva Graphics & M/s XLICT software Pvt. Ltd and other unknown accused persons and fraudulently and dishonestly cheated the Government to the extent of Rs. 20 crores during the year 2019-21 in the matter of purchase of various items related to the use of University during examination and otherwise, it is alleged that ignoring the advice of the competent officer, the accused persons raised bill to the extent of Rs. 20 crores from Magadh University and Veer Kunwar Singh University without assessing the requirement and violating the tender procedure and justification of rates etc. The Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University and Registrar Patliputra University cleared all the fraudulent bills of the private firms. The petitioner, who was officiating as the Finance Officer of Patliputra University, was deputed to Magadh University as Finance Officer by the order of the Chancellor/Governor of Bihar where he served in the capacity of Finance Officer from April 15, 2021 to July 4, 2021. The allegation against the petitioner was that he connived with the main accused, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then Vice Chancellor and other accused persons to clear the fraudulent bills of accused nos. 3 and 4. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the High Court that from bare perusal of the First Information Report, it can be inferred at the outset that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during the investigation and the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 20.03.2023. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was further submitted that being the Finance Officer, the petitioner is bound to act in accordance with the orders of the Vice Chancellor. Section 16 of the Act also reflects that the Finance Officer has no role in making any financial decisions for the University, rather he holds a formal role as a co-signatory upon the payment of cheques. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had lodged complaints with secretary, Governor Secretariat about the mishaps of the University long before the initiation of the present case. Annexure-4 to the present application has been brought on record to substantiate the said submission. 

The Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance (SVU) opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the SVU. It has been stated in paragraphs-10, 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was in connivance with the prime accused and other accused persons. There was a fraud in supply made by the accused nos. 2 and 3 and knowing these facts the Examination Controller and the petitioner signed the cheques. Hence, the petitioner is a part of criminal conspiracy due to which huge amount of Government of Bihar was misappropriated. The counsel for the Special P.P. for the SVU hence, submits that a huge loss has been caused to the state exchequer and the petitioner is part of the said conspiracy. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that the anticipatory bail application of several similarly situated accused persons have already been rejected by the High Court. In support of their contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Santosh So Dwarkadas Fafat vs. State of Maharastra (2017) 9 SCC 714, Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941,  Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. Reported as (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299. 

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh

In Rahul Kumar@ Rikesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhyan passed a 3-page long order dated July 24, 2025, wherein it set aside the 3-page long order dated September 12, 2024 by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of Patna High Court who had rejected the bail prayer.

The appellant's counsel contended that this was a case based on circumstantial evidence. Even the cause of death as per the autopsy report was not clear. He pointed out that it has been admitted that the body was found in river water, therefore, possibility of death on account of drowning cannot be ruled out given the fact that the autopsy report showed that lungs were found filled with water. It was submitted that the appellant has suffered incarceration of over a period exceeding one year and there was no likelihood that the appellant would misuse the liberty of bail during the course of trial. The counsel for the State could not dispute that as per the autopsy report, the cause of death is not ascertainable. 

Supreme Court's order reads:"6. Having regard to the facts of the case as also the contents of the autopsy report brought on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for release on bail during pendency of the trial on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order rejecting the bail prayer is set aside." It ordered that the appellant be released on bail.

Patna High Court had heard 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 April 23, 2024 and modification order dated June 12, 2024 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in Serial Case No. 317 of 2023, Special Case No. 392 of 2023 which arose out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2023 dated August 23, 2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 364, 365, 506, 302, 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(r)(s) / 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

As per the prosecution case, It is alleged that the informant's grandson along with one Ganesh Kumar went to take bath in the Ganga River and she made suspicion that the appellant and the co-accused persons kidnapped her grandson with intent to kill and Pawan Kumar escaped.

The counsel for the appellant had submitted before the High Court that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He submitted that the caste name was not disclosed by anyone at the time of the alleged occurrence. He also submitted that no specific caste name was called by the appellant hence no case was made out under section of the SC/ST Act. There is nothing except suspicion. It was also alleged that the said occurrence took place at 7:30 AM on 23.08.2023 and the postmortem of deceased commenced on March 24, 2023 at 8:00 PM in which no ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The dead body was decomposed and rigor mortis was absent which indicated that the death of the deceased had taken place much before the alleged time of occurrence. The appellant had three criminal antecedents. The appellant was in custody since February 16, 2024.  The counsel for the informant and the Special Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant. It was stated that the eyewitness Pawan Kumar had made specific allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It was further stated that the accused persons were pressurizing the deceased to withdraw the case bearing Salimpur P.S. Case No. 166 of 2023 dated July 25, 2023 which was filed by the deceased against the co-accused persons and as the deceased did not compromise, he was brutally assaulted and thrown in the river.

In Rahul Kumar@ Rikesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2024), Justice Chandra Prakash Singh's order concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and heinous nature of allegation against the appellant, I am not inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 and modification order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act, Patna in Serial Case No. 317 of 2023, Spl. Case No. 392 of 2023 arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2023 and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected." The respondent no. 2 was Bachchi Devi.  

It is noteworthy that although Justice Singh's order rejecting bail has been set aside, the Supreme Court has recorded in its order that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.  

Supreme Court modifies conditional order of bail delivered by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh because dispute is civil in nature

 

In Prince Raj vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's 3-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta modified order of Single judge Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court dated September 20, 2022 to set aside the condition of deposit. The second respondent was Rajeev Kumar. 

The case is related to police station Jakkanpur, Patna. Rajeev Kumar, the petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By filing supplementary affidavit dated September 16, 2022, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 85 lacs to the informant in next 15 months in installments. The petitioner stated that amount claimed by the informant in the First Information Report is also the subject matter of title suit no. 211 of 2021. The counsel for the informant had submitted that payment made by the petitioner may not prejudice case of the informant. Considering the undertaking of the petitioner given in the supplementary allowed. In the event of arrest/surrender within six week, the High Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I cum Sub-Judge I, Patna in Jakkanpur Police Station Case No. 367 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with following conditions:
Receipt of payment of Rs. 5 lacs to the informant would be furnished by the petitioner at the time of processing of bail bond.
Rest amount of Rs. 80 lacs would be paid by the petitioner in next 15 months in installments.

The High Court made it clear that if the petitioner violates the conditions of the bail order, the court below shall cancel his bail bonds.

The Supreme Court's 3-page long order dated May 7, 2025 reads:"we are, prima facie, of the view that the dispute is civil in nature and, as such, the High Court has rightly granted protection to respondent no.2. 6. Since the appellant himself has expressed that the condition of deposit is prejudicing his right, we accordingly set aside the condition of deposit. However, the relief of interim protection granted by the High Court to respondent no.2 shall remain as it is. The impugned order passed by the High Court stands modified to the above extent."

The grievance of the appellant was that the High Court having directed respondent no.2 to make the deposit is in effect prejudicing the right of the appellant in a suit for specific performance pending before the Civil Court. 

Supreme Court dismisses husband's special leave petition, orders transfer of fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/ with interest to account of wife

In Ram Kishore Singh @Ram Kishore vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar passed an order on April 30, 2025. It reads:"In the instant special leave petition, notice was issued on 02.04.2024 only with respect to mediation subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- which is lying with the Registry of this Court in Fixed Deposit. 2) Later, the matter was referred to mediation on 24.01.2025. As per the report received from the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, the mediation remained unsuccessful. 3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and due to the fact that limited notice was issued for mediation which remained unsuccessful, we are not inclined to entertain the present special leave petition. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed. ....4) On supplying the account details of the complainant-respondent No.2 within three days to the Registry, the amount lying in the fixed deposit along with interest, if any, shall be transmitted in her account". The order was passed after the receipt of the mediation report. The respondent no. 2 is Raushani Kumari, a resident of Chandmari, Motihari and the wife of the petitioner.

This case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated February 13, 2024 passed by Justice Patna High Court which had arisen out of police case in 2022 in Mahila Thana, East Champaran. The application before the High Court was filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated July 19, 2022 passed by SDJM, Sadar Motihari, East Champaran whereby he had taken cognizance under sections 498(A), 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in connection with Mahila P.S. Case pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sadar Motihari, East Champaran.

The prosecution case, was that the wife of the petitioner had filed the case, alleging that on November 30, 2013, her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner, and her father gave her ornaments worth Rs. 2,50,000/-, clothes and furniture, and cash of Rs. 10–12 lakh. After marriage, she had gone to her matrimonial house, and after 4-5 days of hearing about the cheating of her husband on another girl, at the instigation of her in-laws, her husband started demanding a four-wheeler. On this issue, her husband (the petitioner), Harikant Singh (the father-in-law), Kunti Devi, Shyam Kishore Singh (Devar), and Kanhaiya Kishore Singh (Devar) started torturing her; for that, they abused her and threatened to kill her. Her husband tried to kill her with his licensed revolver. After acknowledging the same, her parents tried to pacify the matter. In the meantime, from wedlock, six-year-old Om Kumar (son) and a one-year-old daughter (Ananya) were born, but they did not stop torturing. In the year 2020, her husband went to Patna to leave her and their children. He did not want to talk and provide expenses. He always used to talk about another marriage. In 2021, he ousted her, taking all her belongings. After settlement, she went to Sasural at Muzaffarpur, but on January 12, 2022, they ousted her and always threatened to kill her and her family members. Her husband is a police personnel, and he was posted at the District Head Quarter Motihari, C.I.D. Department. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of Opposite Party No. 2, and no such occurrence, as alleged in F.I.R., has ever taken place. The petitioner has never committed any torture or demanded any dowry from OP No. 2. It is next submitted that the marriage is about more than 11 years old, and out of wedlock, two children were born who are presently aged about 8 years and 2 and a half years. It is also asserted and submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is not aggrieved by his wife but is aggrieved further submits that the petitioner has been implicated in more than three cases by the Opposite party No. 2. He submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to keep Opposite Party No. 2, as his wife, with honour and dignity. The counsel of the Opposite party No. 2 submitted that there was specific allegation against this petitioner that he, along with other co-accused persons, not only assaulted the Opposite party No. 2 but also abused her on several occasions for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and lastly, in the year 2018 also, the petitioner demanded dowry, and on refusal, the petitioner threatened the opposite party No. 2 on the point of pistol. Therefore, it was prayed on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner should be put on trial. 

The High Court's Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh had concluded: "Considering the rival submissions of the parties and materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that there is direct and specific allegation against this petitioner of committing torture, assault, and abuse to opposite party No. 2. As such, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned which warrants any interference by this Court." The petition was dismissed. 

Supreme Court's Division Bench reverses decision of Justice Partha Sarthy which endorsed cognizance order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biharsharif (Nalanda)

In Parmanand Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran observed:"In any case considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offences and the sequence therein, it appears to be a false case and we are of the opinion that in this case, the High Court ought to have invoked the power under Section 482 of the Code and should have against the petitioner. We do not think there is any justification here in this case for the petitioner to undergo trial." It allowed the prayer of the petitioner and quash the criminal proceedings. The 3-page long order was passed on April 29, 2025.  

The petitioner was an accused in a complaint case instituted at the instance of Rohit Raj, the respondent no.2-complainant pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharshariff, Nalanda, Bihar, or the offences punishable under 379, 504, 506, 120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) where the Court took cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the petitioner. His petition against this order, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by Justice Partha Sarthy of the Patna High Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The Court had stayed further proceedings in the complaint against the petitioner by its order dated November 11, 2024. 

Section 323 deals with voluntarily causing hurt. This section punishes anyone who intentionally causes harm to another person, excluding cases covered under Section 334. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to 1,000 rupees, or both.

Section 504 deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. This section penalizes individuals who intentionally insult someone, thereby provoking them to commit a breach of the peace or other offenses. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. This section addresses criminal intimidation, which includes making threats to cause death or grievous hurt, or to commit other serious offenses. The punishment for this offense can vary depending on the severity of the threat, ranging from up to two years of imprisonment and/or a fine for simple intimidation, to up to seven years of imprisonment, a fine, or both for more severe threats.

The complaint stated that the petitioner along with another person had attacked on the respondent no.2-the complainant. There are no injuries and the case inter-alia is registered under Section 307 of the IPC, which addresses the offense of attempt to murder.. The fact of the matter is that prior to one month from filing of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner had lodged an FIR against the respondent no.2-the complainant along with another person for having attacked the petitioner who is a practicing lawyer in Patna. It is from the very same transaction, where the complainant had gone to the office of the petitioner with the another person that the complaint was raised after one month. 

In his 7-page long order dated July 11, 2024, Justice Partha Sarthy had concluded: "in the opinion of the Court, there is no illegality in the order impugned dated 5.7.2023 passed in Complaint Case no.135C of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biharsharif (Nalanda) taking cognizance under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code".

He observed: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court finds that in the complaint (Annexure-1) filed by the complainant, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner along with one another of having abused and assaulted the complainant and others. Though the petitioner has made substantial points of an earlier FIR having been lodged by him being Bihar P.S. Case no.28 of 2023 on 8.1.2023 with respect to the occurrence of the same date as in the present complaint, the Investigating Officer having found the contents of the said FIR to be true and having submitted chargesheet no.194 of 2023 on 28.2.2023 together with the delay in filing of the instant complaint, in the opinion of the Court, these points being the defence of the petitioner could not have been looked into by the learned trial Court at the time of taking cognizance. The Court was required only to see the contents of the complaint petition together with the statement of the complainant and the witnesses examined in support of the complaint during enquiry. The Court did not have the jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint." He made reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr.; (1985) 2 SCC 370 and M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors.; (2000) 3 SCC 269.

Granting relief to Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in a rape case, Delhi High Court's Justice Neena Bansal Krishna says, “protecting” will always weigh more than “punishing”

Brother of Syed Shahnawaz Hussain is married to the complainant 

In P (Complainant) vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Syed Shahnawaz Hussain (2024), Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of of Delhi High Court observed: "“Innocent until proven guilty” coupled with the rigorous standard of "establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” forms the foundational tenet of our criminal justice administration. The acquittal of guilty individuals, while regrettable, is a lesser evil compared to the horror of condemning the blameless. When the delicate scales of justice are tipped with utmost care, “protecting” will always weigh more than “punishing”" in a case pertaining to offences under Sections 376/328/506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, against Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, the respondent no. 2, the former Member of Parliament. The judgement was delivered on August 2, 2024.

Section 376 deals with punishment for sexual assault. The relevant part of the section reads: "1 (a) whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2) commits sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. (b) If the sexual assault is committed by a person in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant or by a near relative of the complainant, he/she shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 328 deals with the offence of causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit and offence" It reads: "Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 506 deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation. It reads: "Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

It was alleged by the lady complainant that on April 12, 2018 during the BJP dharna in Delhi, the lady received a call from Syed Shahnawaz Hussain to meet him at Roshan Tent House, New Khanna Market, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi at about 06:00 P.M., to accompany him to his Farmhouse in Chhatarpur where his brother and his brother‟s wife, Mrs. Lama Hussain would also be present, to sort out the ongoing difference/issues between her and his brother Shri Syed Shabbaz Hussain. Allegedly, when she reached the Farmhouse along with Hussain, she was asked by him to switch off her mobile phone. Thereafter, Hussain gave her some eatables and cold drinks, on consumption of which she lost her consciousness. Taking advantage of the situation, he raped her till late night. He then threatened to tarnish her image by circulating her explicit/sexual videos recorded by him and even threatened to kill her and her family members. The complainant reported the incident through the complaint dated April 22, 2018 to Station House Officer, Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Delhi as well as Complaint dated April 26, 2018 to Commissioner of Police, whereby she sought registration of an FIR under Section 376/328/506 of IPC 1860, against Hussain.

Despite several calls on Number 100 and Number 112 to Delhi Police and being called to the Police Station several times, no FIR was registered against Hussain. All her complaints to Police (Vigilance Department) at Barakhamba Road, Delhi and also to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Commissioner, did not result in any action either against Hussain or against the Police Officers involved in protecting him. 

Subsequently, a Complaint was filed under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, Delhi. After consideration of the allegations made by the complainant, the Metropolitan Magistrate finding that the allegations in the Complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offence, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. & Ors (2008), directed the registration of FIR vide order dated July 7, 2018. The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the recording of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and for the medical examination of victim/complainant and Hussain, the accused. Despite the order, no FIR was registered by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mehrauli. The police continued to protect the accused, who was also able to commit theft of documents from the Saket Court, in connivance with the police officials.

Hussain challenged the order dated July 7, 2018 before the Session Court, Saket Court, Delhi on July 9, 2018 through his revision petition. The Court of Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-01 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi dismissed the Revision Petition by order dated July 12, 2018. He approached the High Court by filing a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but was dismissed on August 17, 2022 by Justice Asha Menon in CRLMC No. 3456/2018. This case was filed and registered on August 18, 2022 in the Supreme Court and verified on August 20, 2022. It was decided by Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta. The apex Court was not inclined to interfere with the order and judgment passed by the High Court. It dismissed special leave petition of  Syed Shahnawaz Hussain by its order dated January 16, 2023. The order dated July 7, 2018 of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court directing registration of FIR was upheld.

The High Court's order records that the complainant was pressurized her to compromise with the accused. The police persons had also threatened and pressurized the witnesses of complainant. Several witnesses were also beaten mercilessly by the Police. This is supported by Sangeeta Singh, the witness who has filed a criminal complaint against the Mehrauli Police/SHO/Investigating Officer and other accused persons which is pending in the Saket Court, Delhi. It also recorded that the Investigating Officer/SHO Police Station Mehrauli, under the undue influence of the Hussain, tried to save him from this case and filed the false Report/Cancellation Report dated April 25, 2023 in the FIR No. 85/2023 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, Delhi.

A Protest Petition was filed by the complainant against the Cancellation Report dated April 25, 2023 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi. The Court through its order dated October 10, 2023 allowed the protest petition filed by the complainant and rejected the Cancellation Report filed by the Investigating Agency. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cognizance took cognizance under Sections 376/328/506 of IPC, 1860 thereby summoning the accused person to face trial for the offences. Notably, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate referred to the judgments in the case of Phool Singh vs. The State of M.P., decided vide Crl. Appeal No. 1520/2021 by the Apex Court vide Judgment dated 01.12.2021, Santhosh Moolya & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 479/2009 and Ganesan vs. State (Represented by its Inspector of Police), Criminal Appeal No. 680/2020, wherein it has been observed that the sole testimony of the victim or prosecutrix, if reliable, is sufficient to convict an accused and it requires no corroboration.

The order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged by Hussain in a Criminal Revision Petition the Session Court, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi. The Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts set aside the Summoning Order dated October 10, 2023 of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate through its order dated December 16, 2023. Additional Sessions Judge observed that there is no quarrel with the proposition of law that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if reliable, can be sufficient to convict the accused, but the entire focus of all the judgments of the Apex Court is on the reliability of the testimony.

The lady petitioner, the complainant challenged this order in the High Court. She contended that the Hussain has concealed material facts and did not place on record the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court because through those Orders, his petitions, which were essentially on the same grounds, had already been dismissed. She further averred that it is a settled law that in the rape case, the conviction can be done on the basis of medical evidence and also the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, failed to appreciate that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical report of the victim which support the prosecution case and make it a fit case for summoning the accused and to proceed with the trial for offences made out. The present Revision Petition was filed to challenge the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated December 16, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in accepting the Cancellation Report.

In its judgement the High Court has recorded that "the alleged incident was of 12.04 2018 while the complaint has been made on 22.04.2018 i.e., after about ten days" after she could gather courage to make the complaint despite this "the FIR got registered only by the intervention of the Court right upto the Apex Court" when Hussain did not find any favour. The FIR No. 85/2023 was eventually registered "after about five years" in regard to the alleged incident of April 12, 2018.  

The High Court observed that the "sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be the basis of conviction but has a caveat that it must be of sterling quality and absolutely reliable. To ascertain the credibility and reliability of the testimony of the prosecutrix, the surrounding circumstances as deciphered during investigation, also require equal consideration." It grappled with the question as to "whether the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer shakes the credibility of the testimony and creates a grave suspicion that the alleged offences could not possibly have occurred."

The judgment concluded:"the overwhelming independent ocular, documentary and scientific evidence collected during the investigations, whereby the presence of the respondent no.2 and complainant on the date of the alleged incident at the place of alleged incident i.e. Sharma Farmhouse is completely ruled out, the possibility of the commission of alleged offence is rendered zilch. Hence, conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in accepting the Cancellation Report has to be upheld. In view of the foregoing discussions, there is no infirmity in the impugned Order dated 16.12.2023 and the Revision Petition is hereby dismissed."

Unanswered India Gate Question

"India Gate" is mentioned on five occasions in the judgment.   

Notably, the complainant's submission stating that "IO/Police SHO Police Station Mehrauli, has intentionally not produced the CDR Report/CCTV footage of India Gate which is important evidence to prosecute respondent No. 2" which  Special Judge has failed to appreciate is recorded in paragraph 21 of the judgement, has not been disputed.  At paragraph 72 of the judgement which provides details about the "Additional Contentions of the Petitioner", it is recorded that "The complainant in the Petition has raised a ground that the IO/SHO Police Station Mehrauli has not produced the CDR report/CCTV Footage of India Gate which is important evidence to corroborate that after the incident, she was abandoned at India Gate, in the middle of the night after the incident."  

The judgement of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reproduces the response of the I.O. at paragraph 73-74 without engaging with it. 

The text with regard to I.O's submission reads: "The I.O. in the Cancellation Report has explained this aspect by stating that the CDR records of her mobile phone, which was with her, clearly reflect that her presence at India Gate has not been confirmed by the location charts. She was seen to be present at various places in Dwarka on the date of the incident and at even the alleged time of incident which is 10:00 PM to 10:30 P.M., her Cell-ID location is of Sector 22, Dwarka at 22:31:42 hrs. In light of the above discussion, when it is evident that the complainant was at different places in Dwarka throughout the day and when the mobile number has not been denied by the complainant, there arises no question that the CDR of the mobile phone would incorrectly reflect her location, since a person cannot be present at two locations at one time, the CCTV footage of India Gate would not be of any assistance in the present case. Further, even if the CCTV would have reflected her presence at India Gate, it could not have provided any assistance in proving the alleged incident of rape or commission of the alleged offence." 

This does not seem to answer the India Gate question by any stretch of imagination. Will this question be examined when there is an appeal against the High Court's judgement?  

Influence of High Court's observation on Sayed Sahahbaz Hussain and his wife on pending case before Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi

In paragraph 65-70 of the judgement records that it was also the claim of the petitioner that Sayed Sahahbaz Hussain, brother of Syed Shahnawaz Hussain had also raped her in the year 2013 in regard to which she had met the Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, who was a Member of Parliament at that time. The complainant/prosecutrix even approached the Delhi Commission for Women in the year 2016 with the above allegation of rape by the brother of Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, the respondent No. 2 and she had also alleged that she was forcibly made to convert her religion by signing papers of conversion and even a fake Nikahnama in the name of complainant/prosecutrix and Syed Shahbaz Hussain, was prepared. She stated by her that in regard to the said incident involving the brother of the respondent No. 2, she had made a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR, though it was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was subsequently allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision, but since the same was done with issuing notice to Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, respondent No. 2, the High Court set the order aside and remanded it back which is pending adjudication before Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi.

The judgement also records that Syed Shahbaz Hussain, disclosed that the complainant/petitioner had sought his help for some NGO work which he had given her and she had visited his house on few occasions, but suddenly she started posting some objectionable posts on social media about him and blackmailing him for money and fraud and also extended threats to implicate him in false rape case. She even started pressuring him to divorce his wife and to marry her. When he refused to accede to her illegal demands, she made a complaint in Women Commission, Delhi making false allegations of rape against him on the pretext of marriage and forcible conversion etc. He denied having any relationship with the complainant/petitioner. He also disclosed to the Investigating Officer that under the pressure and threats and on a promise made by the complainant/prosecutrix to withdraw her complaints against him, he agreed to marry her and they both got married on January 10, 2017, but she continued to blackmail and threaten him and even visited his house on various occasions and created scene, resulting in filing of different complaints in the local Police Station and registration of some FIRs against her at Police Station Sarita Vihar and Jamia Nagar. He also stated about continuous extension of threats and the cross complaints given or filed by them against each other to different authorities. The statement of Lama Hussain, wife of the respondent No. 2 also deposed and gave the statement on similar lines.

Delhi High Court's observation on Sayed Sahahbaz Hussain and his wife, the complainant is germane to the case pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi. 

Link between property dispute and allegations of sexual assault?

The reference to property dispute in the context of allegations of sexual assault by the lady complainant finds passing reference in the judgement. The relationship between the possibility of property dispute and allegations of the assault has not be examined at any stage of the judicial process.        

Supreme Court grants decree of divorce under Article 142(1) of Constitution

In it's 73 page long judgement, in Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda, Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal observed:"The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for. In recent times, the invocation of Sections 498A, 376, 377, 506 of the IPC as a combined package in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes is a practice which has been condemned by this Court on several occasions." 

The Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-husband under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Consequently, the criminal cases and the consequential proceedings pending against respondent-husband for offences punishable under Sections 354,376, 377, 420,498A,503, 506, 509 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 67 of the IT Act, 2000, filed by the petitioner are quashed.The criminal case and the proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 360, 427, 452, 454, and 457 of the IPC also stand quashed. 

It added: "In certain cases, the wife and her family tend to use a criminal complaint with all the above serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a mechanism and a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their demands, which are mostly monetary in nature." 

It underlined that "The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands."

The judgement was delivered on December 19,2024. Prior to this on December 10, 2024, the Court had taken note of the tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord by misusing provisions like Section 498-A IPC in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana. In May, 2024, the Court observed in Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal that at Hindu Marriage is a sacred institution, not a social event for "song and dance" and "wining and dining".  The Court recalled it's earlier decisions in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana (2024) , Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010), Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006), Shakti vs. Anita (2023), Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024), Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs. Paramvir Parmar (2011). 

The Court directed the respondent to pay the petitioner a sum of ₹ 12 crores only which shall be paid within one month. The litigation cost for the petitioner was ₹3 lakhs is to be paid along with the payment of permanent alimony. The petitioner was directed to vacate from the premises belonging to respondent’s father at Pune and Bhopal,within two months from the date of receipt of the amount of permanent alimony. The judgement was authored by Justice Nagarathna. 

Battling a "fake and fabricated case", suicidal Dr Shweta Burnwal reaches Patna High Court, writes to Prime Minister

Dr. Shweta Burnwal filed a criminal miscellaneous petition No. 11352/2024 on January 20, 2024 in the Patna High Court on the subject of quashing of the order of cognizance arising out of complaint of Khagaria Police Station Case No.: 128 dated April 1, 2023. It was registered in the High Court on February 9, 2024. Bipin Kumar is the additional respondent who has got an vakalatnama filed on April 15, 2024 by his counsel. 

It is apparent that the matter is pending  before the Court of Justice Partha Sarthy because some defects have not yet been cured as yet. 

In the meanwhile, in a letter dated May 29, 2024 addressed to the Prime Minister, Dr. Shweta Burnwal has informed that Bipin Kumar, her husband is trying to kill her. She was filed a case against him under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code on September 12, 2021. She was married to him on February 20, 2020. Because of harassment by her husband, she started living with her parents in Kolkata since March 14, 2021. Her mother is suffering from cancer. She wrote, "my husband has been harassing me and my family in all its forms, both mentally and physically. My husband, Bipin Kumar, is close to the judiciary and has filed false cases against me and my maternal grandparents in just eight months." The notice of the cases against her and her family has not been received by her and her family (father, brother, sister, brother-in-law, two maternal uncles and Mami). She has claimed that all the advocates of the Khagaria Court have refused to take up her case under the influence of her husband. 

In her letter to the Prime Minister, she wrote, "मेरे पति बिपिन कुमार न्यायपालिका में नजदीकि के कारण और अपनी बदनियति से झूठे मुकदमे कर महज आठ (8) महीने में ही crpc 82 और 83 (कुर्की, जपती) मुझे और मेरे ननिहाल के परिवारों पर लगवा दिए हैं ।इस केस (128c/ 2023) की सूचना मुझे और मेरे परिवार वालों(पिता,भाई,बहन, बहनोई,दो मामा, मामी और मैं) को सीआरपीसी 82 लगने तक तक किसी भी माध्यम से प्राप्त नहीं हुई जैसा कि कोर्ट के आर्डर शीट में भी लिखा गया है कि तामिला अप्राप्त (जिसकी कॉपी इसके साथ संलग्न कर रही हुं)." She concluded her letter saying, "यह बहुत खेद के साथ कहना पड़ रहा है कि मैं मानसिक रूप से डिप्रेशन में जा रही हूं और साथ ही मैं इस विकट परिस्थिति में आत्महत्या करने की और अग्रसर हो रही हूं।" 

The other side of the story can be gathered from the FIR and the complaint letter available at https://in.docs.wps.com/l/sIDnP4tiCAqmUhbMG?v=v2 which was filed by Vinay Kumar, the brother of Bipin Kumar, a Court Manager in Khagaria Court. In the compliant it has been alleged that Bipin Kumar's wife and her family members have indulged in criminal  intimidation and criminal activities on the body and the property of the family of the complainant including his mother.