Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma in a dowry death case

In Lal Muni Devi vs. The State  of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 12-page long order dated March 25, 2026 wherein, it set aside a 4-page long order dated January 16, 2026 by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court. Supreme Court concluded: "12. The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is wholly unsustainable. In a very serious crime like dowry death, the High Court should have been very careful in exercising its discretion. The High Court in its impugned Order has not discussed anything. All that weighed with the High Court was that the accused was in judicial custody and only two witnesses had been examined till the date the High Court passed the impugned order. 13. The High Court lost sight of many important aspects of the matter, more particularly the post-mortem report indicating number of injuries on the body of the deceased, and the presumption of commission of offence as provided under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023." 

In Vikash Kumar vs. The State of Bihar  Cr. Misc. No. 80290 of 2025, in his order dated January 16, 2026, Justice Verma had concluded: "....let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patna in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024", subject to certain specified conditions given the fact that the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future and the petitioner was in custody since September 2, 2024.  

Prior to this in a 2-page long order dated May 16, 2025 in Vikash Kumar vs. The State of Bihar  Cr. Misc. No. 24229 of 2025, Justice Verma had concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna." Supreme Court appeared startled by change of the order within seven months. 

Notably, Justice Verma had recorded the submission of counsel for the Informant as well as APP for the State that the petitioner had committed the murder of the deceased and she has been died within one and half years of the marriage and witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.   

This appeal against the order by Justice Verma had reached the Supreme Court at the instance of the original complainant (mother of the deceased), seeking to challenge the legality and validity of the Order passed by the High Court dated January 16, 2026, releasing the Respondent No.2 - original accused (husband of the deceased), on bail in connection with the First Information Report dated September 1, 2024 registered with the Gopalpur Police station, State of Bihar for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. respectively. It appeared from the materials on record that the deceased was married to the accused past 1½ years. On September 1, 2024, the deceased was found dead at her matrimonial home in suspicious circumstances with external and internal injuries all over her body. The mother of the deceased lodged an FIR on the very same day and date. 

Supreme Court's order reads: "18. We are informed that the trial is in progress. On this ground alone, the High Court should have declined bail. 19. We are of the view that the impugned Order deserves to be set aside. The bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled and the Respondent No.2 - accused should be directed to surrender before the jail authorities. We order accordingly. 20. We clarify that our present observations are limited to deciding whether the bail granted by the High Court is liable to be cancelled. The trial court shall proceed on its own assessment of evidence uninfluenced by any of the remarks made herein. 21. The Trial Court shall see to it that the trial is completed within six months from today. 22. We grant one week’s time to the Respondent No.2 to surrender before the jail authority, failing which the trial court shall issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest. 23. The appeal stands disposed of. 24. There is a connected petition filed by the State seeking the very same relief of cancellation of bail. 25. In view of the order passed in the petition filed by the de-facto complainant, we need not pass a separate order in the petition filed by the State. 26. The same is disposed of accordingly. 27. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 28. The Registry shall forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Patna who shall in turn place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna."

Patna High Court imposes ₹25,000 on the State for illegal seizure of vehicle in a Excise case from Gopalganj

The petitioner's counsel submitted that in the seizure memo, there is no recovery of liquor. In the absence of such recovery of liquor, initiation of proceedings for Excise offence and the seizure of the vehicle for the offences under the Excise Act is not warranted. 

The counsel for the respondents, namely, the State of Bihar, through Secretary Excise and Prohibition Department Gov. of Bihar, Patna, the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, the District Magistrate, Gopalganj, the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj,the Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj and the SHO, Gopalganj Police Station, Gopalganj did not dispute the submission of the petitioner's counsel who sought release the seized vehicle which was seized by the State officials under Section 47/52 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 and Section 317(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. 

In Niyati Ghosh Mandal vs. The State of Bihar, Patna High Court's division bench of Justices P.B. Bajanthri and S.B. Pd. Singh has "directed to release the subject matter of vehicle forthwith to the respective owner of the vehicle after due production of documents of the vehicle. For seizure of vehicle without reasons and registration of Excise offence and compelling the petitioner to approach this Court in filing writ petition." The Court observed: "the petitioner is entitled to litigation cost and it is quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. Cost shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order." Justice Bajanthri authored the judgement dated December 13, 2024.

The Court concluded:"he concerned authority/disciplinary authority is permitted to initiate departmental inquiry against such of those erring officials, who are involved in illegal seizure of the vehicle. Such inquiry shall be initiated and completed and recovery of cost shall be taken care of in the disciplinary proceedings so as to not to burden the State exchequer.Disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of this order.".