Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sunil Dutta Mishra bench sets aside order by Special Judge, NIA, Patna after Supreme Court remittd the case back to the High Court

In Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani vs. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra delivered a 30-page long judgement dated October 6, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"38. In the present case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate that the ground(s) for arrest/detention have been furnished in writing. Even as time was granted to the respondent, no document showing service of grounds of arrest in writing has been placed before this Court. 39. We have further found from the transit remand order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, that before the learned magistrate Bihar police produced the Case- diary (C.D. File) and a remand petition but there is nothing to indicate that the copy of the C.D. File and the remand application was served on the appellant two hours before his production before the learned magistrate. Therefore, in this case the prejudice caused to the accused is evident. The learned Magistrate didn’t satisfy himself with the compliance of Article 22 of the constitution of India read with section 50 Cr.P.C. [Now section 47 & 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (In short ‘BNSS’)]. Perhaps, in absence of the service of grounds of arrest the accused- appellant couldn’t file an application for bail immediately before the learned CJM at Budgam, and before the learned special judge NIA at Patna. 40. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case for interference. His arrest cannot be sustained. 41. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment/order of the learned trial court and direct that the appellant shall be released from custody, giving him the benefit of the ratio in the case Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). The appellant shall be released on bail forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. The learned trial court may impose such other conditions as may deem fit and proper to secure the attendance of the appellant in course of trial. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 42. It will be open to the learned trial court to secure presence of the appellant in course of trial, if occasion so arises, by issuing coercive order(s) in accordance with law. 43. This appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above."

The Criminal Appeal was preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.2. The appellant was aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated July 15, 2025 (in Proceeding No. III) passed by Special Judge, NIA, Patna rejecting his prayer for regular bail in Special Case No. 10 of 2024, which arose out of Banjariya P.S. Case No. 229 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 317(5), 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 178, 179, 180, 181, 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case is based on the self- statement of ASI Indrajeet Paswan recorded on September 5, 2024 at 18.15 hrs at NH-28A near Kharwa Pool, Banjaria, District-East Champaran, Motihari. In his self-statement, the informant has stated that on 05.09.2024 at about 5:30 hours in the evening, he along with other police personnel proceeded for patrolling and vehicle checking. When they reached near Shankar Dhaba, they got secret information that that from Jhakiya village three persons on one without number plate red coloured motorcycle are coming towards Khandwa Pool. One of the three persons have beard who was wearing blue colour T-shirt and black coloured pant and was carrying black coloured backpack in front of his stomach as also he is the person who was driving the motorcycle. Second person was wearing Khaki coloured Fullshirt and Blue coloured Jeans pant and third person was wearing white coloured T-shirt with lining and Black coloured Jeans Pant. All of them were carrying fake Indian notes. On this information, the informant has informed the senior officials and with the Shashtra Bal personnels, they proceeded towards Khandwa Pool where they found one red motorcycle with above description and three persons on it was coming. On seeing police personnel, they tried to flee away, but police personnel chased them and nabbed all three persons. Seeing this action of the police, nearby people gathered there. Thereafter, police asked their names. They told their names as (1) Md. Nazar Saddam, (2) Md. Waris and (3) Md. Jakir Hussain. The informant requested the people who have assembled there to become witness to the production-cum-seizure list to which all of them refused by saying that these accused persons are outsiders, if we become witness, anything bad can happen to us. Thereafter, two of the raiding team members, namely, Sukhram Bharti and Aditya Kumar were made witnesses to the production-cum-seizure list. Police asked for papers of the motorcycle from Md. Nazar Saddam but he could not produce any papers. The Engine number and chasis number of the motorcycle was worn out. It seems that the motorcycle was stolen one. On search of black coloured backpack, some clothes and hundred notes of 500 Rupees (total 50,000/-) two Aadhar Cards of Md. Nazar Saddam of different addresses was found. On search of his pant, hundred notes of 500 Rupees (total 50,000/-) was found. On search of Md. Waris, from his pant’s pocket, eighty notes of Rs. 500/- and from his shirt’s pocket twenty notes of Rs. 500/- (total Rs.50,000/-) was found. And on search of Md. Jakir Hussain, sixty notes or Rs.500/- from his pant’s pocket and thirty notes of Rs.500/- from his shirt’s pocket (total 45,000/-) was found. Altogether from all the three persons, three hundred ninety (390) fake notes total of Rs.1,95,000/- was found. On further interrogation, they disclosed that they used to carry these fake Indian currency from Pakistan via Nepal through one Rajesh Sahni. They used to transport these fake notes via Delhi to Sarfaraj @ Muzaffar Ahamd resident of Jammu Kashmir. They disclosed that they have done this many times earlier also. In the presence of two witnesses named above, seizure list was prepared, on these three accused persons have
put their signature. The informant alleged that from the above facts, it is clear that these three accused persons in conspiracy with other named accused persons were trying to use fake Indian notes in the market.

The investigation of the case was handed over to the NIA vide order dated December 10, 2024 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Before handing over the investigation to the NIA, the Bihar Police had already completed the investigation of the case and submitted a charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No. 310 of 2024 dated October 24, 2024 against four accused persons, namely, Mohammad Waris, Mohammad Nazar Saddam, Mohammad Zakir Hussain and Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani (the present appellant).

The appellant was arrayed accused number 4 in the charge-sheet. The seized mobile phone as allegedly revealed contained various PDF files of counterfeit currency notes, incriminating voice clips, photographs of suspected persons along with their contact details as well as incriminating chats related to the procurement and supply of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN). His connections with the co-accused have been highlighted in the charge-sheet filed by the NIA.

It was the case of the appellant that he was innocent, had not committed any offence and that the appellant was not arrested on the spot and nothing incriminating was recovered from his conscious possession. It was submitted that whatever counterfeit Indian currencies were recovered, were recovered from the possession of the persons arrested from the spot, one of whom is accused number 1. The appellant had interactions through Social media platform and by virtue of this interaction, they had developed a business relation. The appellant claimed that he was running a business of poultry farm at his local place and was exploring the idea of selling fruit through e-commerce platform, and in that process he came in contact with Nazar Saddam (A1) who was running an e-commerce business with the name of Zamad Online Shopping and Service Private Limited. In connection with the investment in the business in the e-commerce company of Zamad the appellant started investing his money from time to time. The story of transferring money for procuring ‘FICN’ was completely false and without any corroborative legal evidence. The appellant had taken a specific ground in paragraph ‘27’ of his memorandum of appeal that the appellant was arrested in complete violation of the law as the appellant was not served with the grounds of arrest, which would make his arrest completely illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. It was lalso submitted that the charges under Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act (UAPA) would not be attracted in the present case. The prerequisites for inviting applicability of these Sections is that there must be a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the UA(P) Act. It was submitted that in this case the appellant has neither produced, nor smuggled, or circulated the high quality counterfeit Indian currency or coin or any material. The counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case although trial is going on, till date only 3 out of 91 witnesses had been examined. The trial was not likely to be concluded in near future within a stipulated period. 

It was submitted that earlier the High Court had occasion to consider the prayer of the appellant for bail. The High Court had refused to enlarge the appellant on vide order dated February 24, 2026. The Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1478 of 2025 preferred by theappellant was dismissed. 

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court, the appellant had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3238 of 2026 (SLP (Crl) No. 8196 of 2026) before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, having gone through the order of the High Court, noticed that the issue pertaining to the non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest to the appellant, though raised, had not been considered by the High Court. For this reason, without going into the merit of the case, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted it to the High Court to consider the said issue while deciding the bail application of the appellant.

In this background, the appeal was once again taken up for consideration on September 17, 2026. On that date, the High Court passed the following order:-“Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar learned counsel for the N.I.A. 2. This appeal has been taken up for consideration in view of the remand made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.07.2026 in SLP (CRL.) No. 8196 of 2026. It is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court having gone through the impugned order found that one of the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant was that the written ground of the arrest memo was not furnished to the accused-appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this ground was not considered by the High Court.

In his submissions, Md. Tahir, counsel for the appellant has placed before the High Court, judgments of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. vs. State Rep. By Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650 and Dr. Rajinder Ranjan vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 802. It was submitted that all these recent judgments of the Supreme Court have taken note of the judgment rendered in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500 in which the Supreme Court has taken a view that the ground of arrest in writing, it should effectively serve the intended purpose as envisaged under the Constitution of India and the ground of arrest must be made available within two hours minimum interval before the production of the accused before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that non-compliance with this direction would be in the teeth of the arrestee's constitutional right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

The appellant's counsel had also submitted that in the remand requisition submitted before the Court seeking transition, there was no mention of furnishing of written grounds of arrest.

When the appeal was taken up for consideration, the ASG representing the NIA categorically stated that no written grounds of arrest seems to have been furnished to the appellant. 

Justice Prasad recorded that the counsel for the appellant solely focused on his submissions with regard to
non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest, therefore, the High Court is not going into any other aspect of the matter at this stage.

In the case of Vihaan Kumar, the Supreme Court concluded: “26. Therefore, we conclude: 26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); 26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; 26.3. When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the investigating officer/agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); 26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge-sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge-sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 26.5. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”

Justice Prsad observed:"...it turns out that mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the  constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The objective of the constitutional mandate is to place the person in a position to comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him and it can only be realised when the grounds are furnished in a language understood by the person, thereby enabling him to exercise his rights effectively. 52. From the catena of decisions discussed above, the legal position which emerges is that the constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form of fundamental rights. The intent and purpose of the constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested person to defend himself. If the provisions of Article 22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended purpose of securing personal liberty would not be achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse.”

In the penultimate paragraphs of the judgement, Justice Prasad concluded:" (i) The constitutional mandate and the statutory mandate as contained under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the CrPC leave no room for doubt that it would be necessary for the investigating agency/arresting authority, that a copy of the written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. This has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576:
(ii) If the arrest memo is simply a proforma indicating that the grounds of arrest has been conveyed, it would not be a compliance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) and Dr. Rajindra Rajan (supra): and
(iii) Templates of the arrest memo containing the statement to the effect that the arresting officer explained the grounds of arrest to the accused before the arrest, is no compliance with the mandate of Article 22 of the constitution of India read with section 50 and 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Now Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS); and
(iv) The judgment in Sri Darshan’s case (supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a clear finding that the arrest memos and remand orders reflected that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. In such circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that no material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the present case, the facts are entirely different, therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Darshan’s case (supra) is to be read as explained in the case of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) in paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment. 37. In terms of paragraph ‘66.3’ of the judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Sah (supra), the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case, at least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee for remand before the Magistrate.

Supreme Court sets aside regular bail denial order of Patna High Court in a cyber crime case of fake document based 231 mobile numbers from Rampur Chandraman, Mahuwa, Vaishali

In Anwarul Haque vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 5-page long order dated September 22, 2026, wherein, it granted leave and allowed the appeal. It concluded:"10. We have gone through the same as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI. We find that case of the appellant is almost identical to that of the co-accused Mukesh Mahto who has been granted bail by the High Court. That being the position and considering the fact that appellant is in custody for almost 14 months now, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 11. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 25.03.2026 and direct that the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court  within a maximum period of 7 days from today whereafter he shall be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate."

The appellant was aggrieved by the order dated March 25, 2026, passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court wherein, the regular bail application of the appellant was rejected. The appellant is an accused in Economic offences P.S. Case No.16 of 2025, registered before the Economic Offences Unit Police Station, Patna, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111, 61(2), 3(5), 42(1), 42(2), 43(3) and 42(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66, 66(c), 66(d) and 72 of the IT Act. (now registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI). The appellant was arrested on July 21, 2025 and since then he has been in custody. The allegation against the appellant is that he is involved in a large scale cyber fraud in connection with which a large number of fake sim cards have been recovered. The Court had issued notice on May 13, 2026. In the proceedings held on August 18, 2026, the Supreme Court had called upon the CBI to file an updated status report regarding the present status of the investigation. 9. Pursuant thereto, CBI has filed updated status report. It was in  this backdrop that the High Court's order was set aside. 

Earlier, in Anwarul Haque vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Kumar of the High Court had passed a 2-page long order dated March 25, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"6. Considering the fact that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of large scale cyber fraud and the fact that large number of fake sim cards have been recovered, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 8. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial." The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 16 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111, 61(2), 3(5), 42(1), 42(2), 43(3), 42(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66, 66(c), 66(d) and 72 of the I.T. Act. 

As per the prosecution case, a large scale sim box found was recovered in Vaishali Dstrict, Bihar in which several POS (Point of Sale) were activated and around 231 mobile numbers using fake documents were found. These sim cards were supplied to a sim box setup operating in Gopalganj and Siwan District. Between June 2025 and July 2025 these sim cards were used to generate more than 51,000 calls and international, VOIP calls were converted into local calls. The fraud enabled cyber crime such as phishing calls, fake refund, scams, credit card fraud and customers care scams targeting victims across Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand and other states. The High Court's order recorded that the petitioner is in custody since July 21, 2025.

Supreme Court sets aside regular bail denial order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra in Devnath Rai murder case from Maner

In Dharmendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 5-page long order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"The order passed by the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. 8. The appellant shall be released on bail....".  The High Court's order was passed by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra. Supreme Court recorded:" 4. In this case, it appears that Vinay was an injured witness. His statement was not recorded at the time when the petition was filed and therefore, hearing on this petition was deferred to enable the Trial Court to record the statement of Vinay. 5. We have been informed that the statement of Vinay has been recorded in the trial and he has not identified the appellant as one of the participants in the incident....7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed." Notably, Shiv Kumari Devi, the informant, the wife of Late Devnath Rai, the victim who has allegedly been killed has not been made a party. She has not been able to rope any advocate to represent her in the Supreme Court. 

Earlier, in Dharmendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Mishra of Patna High Court had passed a 3-page long order dated July 7, 2025, wherein, he had refused to grant bail in a murder case. He had concluded:"6 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner as also taking into account the materials available in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously." The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with a P.S. Case of 2024 from Maner  instituted for the offences under Sections 140(1), 109, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Shiv Kumari Devi was not made a party in the case in the High Court. She was not able to rope any advocate to represent her in the High Court to represent her.

As per prosecution case, the accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is to have killed the Informant’s husband and disappeared his dead body. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and had committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The informant is not the eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. He also submitted that there was delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. that too without there being any plausible explanation for the same, which created doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case. It was submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from the conscious/physical possession of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no direct or specific allegation of any overt act against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner had two criminal antecedents and is languishing in judicial custody since December 3, 2024 without any rhymes or reason.The A.P.P. for the State had opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He had stated that the in this case, the injured Vinay Kumar was the eye-witness to the alleged occurrence who have supported the prosecution case. The petitioner, in his confessional statement, had also confessed his guilt. The petitioner  was named in the F.I.R. and, hence, he did not deserve bail. 

Shivkumari Devi is a permanent resident of Lodipur Jeevarakhand Tola, Vyapur Police Station, Maner, Patna. She informed the Maner Police that the incident occurred when her husband Devnath Rai and his friend Vinay Kumar, s/o Murari Rai of Lodipur had gone to Om Sai brick kiln to smoke at around 10 pm on August 5, 2024. At that time, a notorious criminal who is currently lodged in Beur Jail—1. Sagar Rai (son of Kashi Rai; resident of Lodipur Ganga Tola) and 2. Umashankar Yadav alias Shankar Kumar (son of the late Chandeshwar Rai; resident of Lodipur, currently residing at R.P.S. Mor, Bailey Road, Rupaspur Police Station)—conspired to recruit other notorious criminals into their fold. These recruits are: 3. Dharmendra Kumar (son of Kashi Rai; resident of Ganga Tola, Lodipur Bagicha), 4. Lalu Kumar (Dharmendra’s nephew; son of Buddhadev Rai; resident of Chakiya Tola, Chhitnava), and 5. Daroga Rai (son of the late Manik Rai; resident of Lodipur Buddha Tola). 6. Dhora Rai (son of Phudi Rai, alias Pahalban Singh; resident of Vyapur, Purvi Gali) and 7. Munna Rai (son of an unknown person; resident of Bhaggu Tola, Vyapur)—all belonging to the Maner Police Station area, District Patna—suddenly arrived by boat at the Om Sai Brick Kiln, where my husband and his friend, Vinay Kumar, were already present. All the assailants began firing with various weapons they were carrying, with the intent to kill. As a result, her husband and his friend, Vinay, were shot in the leg; Vinay Kumar then ran into the bushes to save his life. After being shot, her husband fled and hid inside the office of the Om Sai Brick Kiln. Inside the office, my husband and a staff member of the kiln—Mohan Rai (son of Shri Sukan Rai, resident of Lodipur, Maner Police Station, Patna)—locked the door from within. Then, all the named perpetrators approached the office while firing indiscriminately and began shooting at the door. Some of the perpetrators climbed onto the roof of the office and started removing the roof tiles. Mohan Rai, one of the named accused, was ordered to open the door; he complied, and then—acting in concert with the other accused—he joined them in murdering my husband. Subsequently, all these perpetrators disposed of my husband's body. Her husband's friend, Vinay Kumar, witnessed the entire incident while hiding in the bushes. Therefore, she request the SHO, Maner P.S. to please take necessary legal action against all the named eight accused persons. Manoj Kumar is the I.O.  of the case. 

Her compliant was registered on August 6, 2024. It reads:"सेवा में थानाध्यक्ष महोदय, मनेर थाना पटना। विषयः. मेरे पति देवनाथ राय के हत्या कर लाश गायब करने के संबंध में आवेदन। महाशय, विनम्रपुर्वक निवेदन के साथ कहना है कि मैं शिवकुमारी देवी पति देवनाथ राय सा० लोदीपुर जीवराखंड टोला पा० व्यापुर थाना मनेर जिला पटना कि स्थायी निवासी हूँ। मेरे पति देवनाथ राय एवं मेरे पति के दोस्त विनय कुमार पिता श्री मुरारी राय सा० लोदीपुर दोनो मिलकर दिनांक 05.08.024 को समय लगभग 10:00 बजे रात्रि में ओम साई ईंट भट्ठा पर धुमने गये हुए थे। उसी समय एक कुख्यात जो वेउर जेल में बंद है 1. सागर राय पिता काशी राय सा० लोदीपुर गंगा टोला एवं 2. उमाशंकर यादव उर्फ शंकर कुमार पिता स्व० चंदेश्वर राय सा० लोदीपुर वर्तमान पता R.P.S मोड़ बेली रोड थाना रूपसपुर इन दोनो साजिश करके कुछ कुख्यात अपराधियो को अपने मेल मे लाकर अपराधि का नाम 3. धर्मेन्द्र कुमार पिता काशी राय सा० गंगा टोला लोदीपुर बगीचा 4. लालु कुमार (धर्मेन्द्र के भगिना) पिता बुद्वदेव राय सा० चकिया टोला छितनावा 5. दरोगा राय पिता स्व0 मानिक राय सा० लोदीपुर बुद्वाटोला 6.ढोरा राय पिता फुदी राय उर्फ पहलबान सिंह सा० व्यापुर पुर्वी गली 7. मुन्ना राय पिता नामालुम सा० भग्गु टोला व्यापुर सभी थाना मनेर जिला पटना ने नाव से एकाएक ओम साई ईट भट्ठा पर पहुँचा जहा पहले से मेरे पति एवं उनके दोस्त विनय कुमार बैठे हुए थें। सभी अपराधी अपने अपने हाथ मे लिये कई तरह के हथियार से जान मारने कि नियत से फायरिंग करना शुरू कर दिया । जिससे मेरे पति एंव पति के दोस्त विनय को पैर में गोली लगी तब मेरे पति के दोस्त विनय कुमार जान बचाने के लिए झाड़ी में जाकर छिप गया। और मेरे पति गोली लगने के बाद ओम साई ईट भट्ठा के ऑफिस मे भागकर छिप गया। ऑफिस के अंदर मेरे पति के साथ ओम साई ईट भट्ठा के स्टॉफ 8. मोहन राय पिता श्री सुकन राय सा० लोदीपुर थाना मनेर जिला पटना दोनो ईंट भटठा के ऑफिस के अंदर दरवाज बंद कर लिया। तब सभी नामित अपराधी अंधाधुंध फायरिंग करते हुए ऑफिस के पास आकर दरवाजा पर गोली चलाने लगा। ओर कुछ अपराधी ऑफिस उपर चढ़कर खपड़ा हटाने लगा।नामित अभियुक्त मोहन राय को दरवाजा खोलने को कहा गया। जिसपर मोहन राय ने दरवाज खोल दिया जिसपर सभी उक्त अभियुक्त के साथ मोहन राय भी मिलकर मेरे पति कि हत्या कर दिया। और उक्त सभी अपराधी मिलकर मेरे पति के शव को ठिकाने लगा दिया। जिस घटना को घटित होते मेरे पति के दोस्त विनय कुमार ने झाड़ी से छुपकर देखा। अतः श्रीमान् से प्रार्थना है कि सभी नामजद 08 अभियुक्तो के विरूद्ध आवाश्यक कानुनी करवाई करने कि कृपा कि जाय। इसके लिए में श्रीमान् कि सदा आभारी रहूंगी। आपकी विश्वासी (शिवकुमारी देवी)". 

Will Shiv Kumar Devi, wife of Devnath Rai get justice? Isn't it a case where a habeas corpus petition should be filed in the High Court? 

Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Satyavrat Verma in a ca se from Govindganj, Motihari

In Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 5-page long order dated June 3, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "6. It is not in dispute that the conditions stand fully complied with; the appellant has cooperated during the investigation; he has not threatened or intimidated any of the witnesses; or has tried to influence the investigation in any manner. 7. We have noticed the nature of crime and the manner in which it was allegedly committed. 8. We allow the present appeal by confirming the order dated 21.04.2026, passed by this Court, with a direction to the appellant to continue to cooperate during the investigation/trial and not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. Also, the appellant shall report before the
Investigating Officer every alternate Monday, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., till such time the investigation is complete in all respects. 9. If the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court feels that the investigation/trial is delayed on account of the appellant’s conduct, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, including cancellation of bail. 10. Further, if the appellant possesses a passport, the same shall be surrendered before the Competent Authority/Court until the conclusion of the trial or directed otherwise. 11. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2026 is set aside."

The appellant had challenged the judgment and order dated March 24, 2026 in Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar”, passed by Justice Stayavrat Verma of the Patna High Court. 

On April 21, 2026, the Supreme Court had passed an order, which reads: "6. In the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 280 of 2025, registered at Govindganj Police Station, District Motihari, Bihar dated 20.11.2025, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Investigating/Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as imposed and found to be just, fair and reasonable."

Earlier, in Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Verma had passed a 3-page long order dated March 24, 2026, wherei, he had concluded:"the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected." The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 303(2), 336(4), 340(1), 340(2), 308(5), 61(2) and 111(1) of the BNS, 2023.  

Ajay Kumar Thakur, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petitioner had antecedent of one case and the informant alleged that petitioner called him on his mobile and introduced himself as having business of jewellery and called him to Muzaffarpur for buying jewellery, the informant went to Muzaffarpur and saw jewellery worth crore of rupees and said that he will come back with money, accordingly, the informant along with his friend went to buy jewellery, but before reaching Muzaffarpur, made a call when petitioner asked him to come near Areraj accordingly, the informant along with his friend went to the place where he was called by the petitioner, further the petitioner took him to the hose of Amresh and disclosed that the house is also for sale and showed jewellery, further petitioner in the meantime made a call when 7-8 accused on 3-4 motorcycles came and took Rs. 19 Lakhs along with other articles and started fleeing, when his friend caught an accused who disclosed his name as Surendra and also disclosed that petitioner, Amresh and others are part of organized gang who fled with the articles and cash. 

The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it was also submitted that the mobile from which the informant got a call does not belong to the petitioner. It was submitted that even the informant dealt in business of purchasing looted jewellery. It was further submitted that petitioner was engaged in business with one Neha Kumari, wife of the brother of the petitioner and the informant had given money to Neha but when the deal failed, the instant false case came to be instituted.

A.P.P. for the State had opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submitted that Neha is also an accused in the instant case. It was also submitted that if informant was dealing in purchasing looted jewellery in that event the same would surface during the course of investigation and appropriate action would be taken, but then as far as the petitioner was concerned, the mobile may not belong to him, but when informant before reaching Muzaffarpur called him on the mobile from which he had received a call from the petitioner earlier, the same was picked by petitioner again. It was submitted that the informant specifically alleged that petitioner along with others were operating an organized crime. It also submitted that investigation of the case is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

Supreme Court sets aside part of conditional bail order by Justice Purnendu Singh

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Supreme Court stays bail rejection order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh

In Basar Ahmad @ Basar Ahmad Farooqui @ Basar Ahamad vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadeva passed an order dated July 31, 2025, wherein it stayed the order dated March 25, 2025 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. Justice Singh's order reads: "Considering the specific and direct nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 318(4), 61(2), 123 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution had alleged that the petitioner had sexually abused the informant on the false promise of marriage and later on refused to solemnize marriage. 

Supreme Court's order reads:"In the meantime, there shall not be any arrest of the petitioner."