Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Patna High Court all set to take oath as judge of Supreme Court

Justice K. Vinod Chandran had taken oath as Chief Justice of Patna High Court March 29, 2023. His appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court was announced in a post on X on January 13, 2025 by Arjun Ram Meghwal, the Union Minister for Law, Justice and and Parliamentary Affairs. He posted the message at 7:28 PM. It  reads:"In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Krishnan Vinod Chandran, Chief Justice, Patna High Court as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India." After he takes oath as a judge of the Supreme Court, the working strength of the Court would rise to 33. Its sanctioned strength is 34, including the Chief Justice of India. The Supreme Court's Collegium had recommended Justice Chandran's name for elevation on January 7, 2025.

In M/s Vijay Pandey vs. The State of Bihar (2025), the Patna High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Partha Sarthy on January 3, 2025 observed:"The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner.  Hence, we dismiss the writ petition; declining exercise of discretion." The relief was denied. The judgement was authored by the Chief Justice.

In Baidyanath Kumar Sahu vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Partha Sarthy on January 10, 2025 observed:"The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner. The writ petition would stand dismissed." The judgement was authored by the Chief Justice.  The Court observed that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. An appeal was to be filed on or before 31.01.2024 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 01.03.2024. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 01.03.2024, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner did not avail such remedy and at this point of time, he cannot seek to avail the appellate remedy for reason of the limitation period having expired long prior. Section 30 of the GST Act also provides for an application for revocation of cancellation within thirty days of the order. The petitioner contends that in the application filed under Section 30 notice was issued for hearing which did not have the name of the Officer or even the signature. We cannot accept the contention since it is the Assessing Officer of the petitioner before whom he should have appeared since it is before that authority the application under Section 30 was filed. The petitioner was not a registered dealer after cancellation and there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. There is also the fact that the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy. There is also no averment as to the assessee having filed returns for a period of six months, on failure of which the cancellation was effected.

In Dr. Poonam Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Patna High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Rajiv Roy on January 19, 2024 observed: "The law favors the diligent and not the indolent. However, the benefit accrued to her cannot be denied, being a continuing wrong. In such circumstances, going by the decision of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, the petitioner can be given the benefit of payment of arrears only three years prior to the filing of the writ petition." The relief was granted. The judgement was authored by the Chief Justice.

Between January 3, 2025-Jnauary 10, 2025, Chief Justice Chandran delivered 29 judgements prior to his scheduled farewell on January 15, 2025. He delivered 12 judgements on January 10, 2025.  

The last case, Request Case No. 104/2023 is: Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar (2025). It came up before the Single Judge Bench of Chief Justice Chandran. The other seven respondents in the case are Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Development Commissioner- cum- Chairman, BSBCL, Patna, Managing Director, BSBCL, Patna, Excise Commissioner, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Managing Director, Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation/BELTRON, Deputy Commissioner- cum- Nodal Officer, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department AND General Manager, BSBCL. The oral judgement records that an application was moved for appointment of an Arbitrator invoking the powers of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement dated January 16, 2017. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide communication dated July 18, 2023 for appointment of an arbitrator, but it was to no avail. It was pleaded that the respondents have not settled the dispute till date and the dispute is of civil in nature. The judgement reads: "Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar, a former Judge of this Court, is appointed as learned Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes arising out of agreement entered into between the parties to the lis. All pleas and issues raised, on merits, are left open to be considered and decided by the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee as per the schedule of the Act. Since the dispute arises out of an agreement of the year 2017, the hearing be expedited. The issue of limitation, if any, along with any other objections, are left open to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. Joint Registrar (List) is directed to communicate the order to the learned Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the parties also undertake to communicate the order to the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal shall issue notice to the respondents. The Request Petition stands disposed of in the above terms."

In Chandan Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department (2025), it was submitted before Patna High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Partha Sarthy that the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sitamarhi  floated an Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) without prior approval, as is mandated by the Urban Development and Housing Department. It was pointed out that "three outsourcing agencies were granted the work, to whom payments have been made, even when the terms and conditions of the agreement have not been complied with. It was also submitted that "the NIT itself was without prior approval of the department." The Court noticed that "the three outsourcing agencies, to whom work has been awarded, have not been made parties. Hence, there is no question of consideration of whether the disbursement of money is in accordance with the agreement or not."The case from Sitamarhi was filed on November 19, 2024 and registered on December 24, 2024. On the January 3, 2025, when the case came for hearing no one appeared for the petitioner. Sanjay Kumar was the counsel for the petitioner. The judgement dated January 10, 2025 reads: "It is for the authority to consider whether the explanation is proper or not and there is no question of a Public Interest Litigation being initiated for the same. For all the above reasons, we find the writ petition to be misconceived. The writ petition stands dismissed." The Court did not examine the veracity of the claim regarding floating of Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) without prior approval. It also did not ascertain whether three outsourcing agencies were granted the work, to whom payments have been made, even when the terms and conditions of the agreement have not been complied with.

Also read:Judgements by one year old Chief Justice of Patna High Court, the judge who upheld Bihar Caste Survey

High Court quashes FIR against Sanjeev Hans, no relief for Gulab Yadav, Lalit in Advocate Gayatri Kumari rape case, matter also pending in Supreme Court

"I am of the view that further proceeding with the case i.e. F.I.R. will result in an abuse of the process of the Court and will not serve the ends of justice. Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that no offence including the offence of rape is made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the complaint/F.I.R. has been lodged after a great delay and from reading of the complaint / F.I.R. the story propounded by the complainant/informant appears to be a false and fabricated one", observed Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court in his order dated August 6, 2024. 

Justice Kumar concluded: "this criminal writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. vide Rupaspur P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 registered for the offence under sections 323, 341, 376, 376-D, 420, 313, 120-B, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 67 of the Information Technology Act and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. including the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate are hereby quashed so far as the present petitioner is concerned." Sanjeev Hans is the present petitioner. 

There are five respondents in the writ filed by Sanjeev Hans namely, Director General of Police (DGP), Bihar, Senior Superintendent of Police (SP), Patna, Station House Officer (SHO), Rupaspur Police Station, Patna and Gayatri Kumari, Kataiya, Jamhur, Aurangabad. Ritika Rani was the Advocate for both the State of Bihar and Gayatri Kumari. Gayatri Kumari is the complainant/informant.  

The order of Justice Kumar dated June 21, 2024 revealed that the writ of Sanjeev Hans was heard with the writ of Gayatri Kumari. The nine respondents in the writ filed by Gayatri Kumar are: the State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, DGP, Bihar,  SP, Patna, SHO, Rupaspur, Patna, Gulab Yadav, Sanjeev Hans, Lalit Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sub-Division Sadar Hospital, Danapur, and Incharge Medical Officer, Sub-Division Sadar Hospital, Danapur.  It emerges that the case against Gulab Yadav, Lalit and government officials persists.  

The order has recorded that "From reading of the F.I.R., it appears that the complainant/informant has made allegation against two persons i.e. Gulab Yadav and the present petitioner. The date of occurrence mentioned in the complaint/F.I.R. is from February, 2016 to the date of filing of the complaint petition i.e. 16.11.2021. Initially, the allegations are levelled against Gulab Yadav who is said to have committed rape with the complainant/informant. The name of the petitioner is mentioned for an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 08.07.2017 at a Hotel in Pune alleging that the complainant was sexually assaulted by both the accused persons and Gulab Yadav made a video of the same and thereafter threatened her of making the video viral." 

Justice Sandeep Kumar observed: "I am of the view that the present case is squarely covered with the guidelines provided by the Rajiv Thapar and Others. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (supra) as the material relied upon by the petitioner is sound and reasonable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality. Thematerials is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. Further, the complainant / informant in her pleadings has not denied the factual aspects which have been found by the Police during enquiry before registration of the F.I.R. and it cannot be justifiably refuted by the complainant/informant. Therefore, I am of the view that further proceeding with the case i.e. F.I.R. will result in an abuse of the process of the Court and will not serve the ends of justice. Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that no offence including the offence of rape is made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the complaint / F.I.R. has been lodged after a great delay and from reading of the complaint / F.I.R. the story propounded by the complainant/informant appears to be a false and fabricated one."

The order observes: "The complainant has waited for five years to file the complaint and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delayed filing of the complaint petition." The Court examined the non-compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.  It relied on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 while dealing with a similar case of a married grown-up woman, who had made allegation of rape against a person. 

The Supreme Court has held “21. In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant. Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years till she gave complaint in the year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as ‘rape’ by the appellant, would be stretching the case too far. The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male child through the loin of the accused, she did not have any complaint against the accused of he having given false promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children also, still she continued to live with the accused at another premises without any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes must have taken place between them, that she filed the present complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had stated that she had filed the complaint as he refused to fulfill her demand to pay her huge amount. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC.” 

The High Court inferred that "In the present case also, the petitioner herself is a grown-up woman, who is practicing Law and as per her own statement she was in a relationship with Gulab Yadav." It observed: "The complainant was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and consequences of the acts of which she was a consenting party. She had consented to have sexual intercourse with Gulab Yadav since 2016 and had a child with him but has subsequently filed the present complaint/F.I.R. making the petitioner as an accused and making allegation against the petitioner that he also committed rape with the complainant/informant."

Notably, the High Court's order records: "it has been argued by the petitioner that he has never been involved with the complainant/informant, but even if he had any sexual intercourse with the complainant/informant, it must have been consensual as the complainant /informant has never made any complaint to any authority and after more than five years of the alleged rape, she has filed the present complaint / FIR in which she has made general allegations against the petitioner without disclosing the details as and when she was raped by the petitioner."

The respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner knowingly and deliberately concealed / suppressed about the order dated September 22, 2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Has Vs. State of Bihar, S.L.P. (Cr.) No.012280 of 2023 preferred by him, whereby the order dated December 12, 2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022 was stayed by the Supreme Court's bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh. In its order, the Court has condoned the delay and issued notice to the respondents. The order reads: "In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the further proceedings." The respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner "is guilty of suppressing the material fact in judicial proceeding in order to obtained favourable order" from the High Court.

The August 6, 2024 order of the Patna High commits two proofing errors in paragraph 12. It refers to Diary Number 19079 of 2023 of the case as SLP (Cr.) No. 012280. It does not mention the name of the case, which is pending in the Supreme Court. It was filed on May 4, 2023. It was verified on September 18, 2023 and registered on September 23, 2023. It was last listed on September 22, 2023. The State of Bihar, Gayatri Kumari, SHO, Gulab Yadav and Lalit are respondents in the case. It refers to earlier case detail as order passed by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad of Patna High Court in CRWJC No. 1271 of 2022 on December 12, 2022. 

Justice Sandeep Kumar dealt with the aspect of concealment/ suppression of the Supreme Court's order by Sanjeev Hans. He observed: "33. After the hearing was concluded, the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 (informant) has filed an application under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. on 17.05.2024 and has submitted that the proceeding against the petitioner be initiated for suppression of material facts. The main contention of the respondent no.5 (informant) is that against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022, the petitioner had moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing an S.L.P. and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.2023 has stayed the order of this Court passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022, but this fact has not been brought to the notice of this Court in this petition." He recorded that the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved before the Supreme Court against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022 on various grounds. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. and for quashing the order dated of the learned Magistrate by which the Magistrate has directed for registration of the F.I.R. and therefore, the petitioner has different cause of action and there is no requirement for mentioning the same in this proceeding. He concluded: "35. In my opinion, no case for initiation of proceeding under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is made out and therefore, Interlocutory Application no. 02 of 2024 is dismissed." Justice Kumar's order dated June 20, 2024 had recorded that after "the hearing is concluded and today the matter has come for dictating the judgment." The counsel of Gayatri Kumari informed that he "has filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C."

It was submitted by the counsel of the Gayatri Kumari that the Magistrate vide order dated January 6, 2023 allowed the prayer of the petitioner to send the complaint petition under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Police for registration of the F.I.R and accordingly, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. The Investigating Officer of the case has filed an application in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-1, Danapur for deputing a Magistrate so that blood sample of Gulab Yadav, the son of the Gayatri Kumari and the petitioner be collected for DNA test but the learned Magistrate vide order dated March 6, 2023 has rejected the prayer of the Investigating Officer by holding that he has no jurisdiction to pass an order for DNA test. Her counsel submitted that Gulab Yadav and Sanjeev Hans, the petitioner used to commit rape with her. Since Gulab Yadav has undergone vasectomy, the presumption goes to establish that the petitioner is the biological father of the son of Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5. Thus, the DNA test of the petitioner and the son of the respondent no.5 is required in order to determine the biological father of the son of Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5.

The Court's order recorded the submission of the petitioner. It was submitted that the complaint petition has been filed without compliance of statutory provision of 154 (1) of the Cr.P.C. and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. The trial court below mechanically sent the aforesaid complaint petition for lodging the FIR under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. without taking note of the fact that complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions as laid down by the apex court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. vs. Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2015 6 SCC 287. It is evident from the complaint filed by the complainant. The order reads: "during the pendency of the case, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid case in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 18/2023 dated 09.01.2023 registered under sections 321, 341, 37, 376D, 420, 313, 120B, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC, 1860 and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000." The petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated January 6, 2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Danapur in Complaint Case No.1122 (c) of 2021, whereby the Magistrate passed the order under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R.

Gayatri Kumari, the complainant is a practicing advocate in Allahabad High Court. She was practicing in Patna High Court from 2009 to 2015. In the month of February, 2016 while the complainant was staying at the residence of Senior Advocate Gajendra Prasad Yadav situated at Golden Plaza Apartment, Chitkohra for getting her case mentioned, a junior advocate namely, Shiv Nandan Bharti introduced her to Gulab Yadav, who was an M.L.A. It has also been alleged that said Gulab Yadav lured her by saying that he will get make her member of Women Commission and asked her to come to meet him along with her bio-data at his residence situated at Flat No.401, Bindeshwari Apartment. It is alleged that when the Complainant reached the house of said Gulab Yadav, he raped her at gun point and when the complainant was going to register F.I.R. then Gulab Yadav asked his servant Lalit to bring vermilion and put the same on the forehead of the complainant and said that they were married and they will get their marriage registered and asked for some time to get divorce from his first wife.

It has been alleged that Gulab Yadav called the complainant to Pune to show the papers of the Court, by which divorce has been granted. On 08.07.2017 when the complainant reached Hotel Bestil then Gulab Yadav introduced her to Sanjeev Hans (petitioner) and both raped her after mixing some intoxicating substance in her food. When the complainant regained her consciousness, Gulab Yadav showed her the video of her rape and sent the same on her mobile and threatened her to make the video viral. The complainant got scared and started to live in Allahabad and when she missed her periods, she informed Gulab Yadav about the same but Gulab Yadav asked her to take medicine for abortion which she consumed, however, she had to get admitted in hospital due to medical condition. Thereafter, Gulab Yadav got the complainant admitted in Rahul Judicial Classes, Delhi and arranged for her stay in a hostel in Mukhergi Nagar, Delhi.

It has also been alleged that Gulab Yadav used to call the complainant at different hotels and raped her where Sanjeev Hans (petitioner) also used to accompany Gulab Yadav. It has also been alleged that on 13.02.2018 at Ashoka hotel, on 14.02.2018 at Park Avenue hotel and on 27.03.2018 at Le’ Meriden hotel, she was gang raped and resultantly she conceived and when she informed the accused about this, the accused persons threatened her. Out of fear, the complainant vacated her hostel and started living in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where she gave birth to a male child on October 25, 2018 and when she informed this fact to Gulab Yadav, he told that it can not be his child as he has undergone vasectomy and said that the child is of Sanjeev Hans. When the complainant tried to contact Sanjeev Hans, he did not speak with her and since then the complainant is hiding from the accused persons as they are quite influential. It has further been alleged that the complainant went to Rupaspur Police Station for registering the F.I.R., but the
Police did not register the F.I.R. by saying that the accused persons are quite influential and then the complainant sent the complaint to Superintendent of Police, Patna on October 28, 2021, however no action was taken in this regard. The complaint case No.1122 (C) of 2021 was filed by the complainant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Danapur, Patna for lodging the F.I.R. The Magistrate vide order dated September 20, 2022 dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 

The complainant approached the High Court by way of filing Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022. The Court vide order dated December 12, 2022 disposed of the said petition with certain directions. The High Court set aside the part of the order dated May 12, 2022 by which the application of the petitioner was taken as a private complaint on the records of the ACJM and then the High Court further set aside the order dated September 20, 2022 by which the same was dismissed in purported exercise of power under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Magistrate vide order dated January 6, 2023 directed for registration of the F.I.R. under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and other accused persons.

Sanjeev Hans had filed the criminal writ in the High Court for the quashing of the FIR on February 3, 2023 through his Advocate Rana Vikram Singh. It was registered on February 16, 2023. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh had passed  the first order in the case on February 25, 2023. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the complainant is a practicing lawyer since 2009 but she filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the first time after 5 years of the alleged incident. It is hard to believe that a criminal lawyer whose standing is of more than 14 years in the Bar had chosen to file a complaint after 5 years of the alleged incident without annexing any proof and without any satisfactory explanation for the said delay. He submitted that the High Court in catena of judgments has held that if delay in lodging FIR is not satisfactorily explained then that delay often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought and such FIR should be quashed. He relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported as AIR 2015 SC 1758; Babu Venkatesh and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported as (2022) 5 SCC 639; Ramesh Kumar Bung & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. SLP (Criminal) No.13762 of 2023; Mahmood Ali vs. State of U.P. reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950; Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kappor reported as (2013) 3 SCC 330; State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported as AIR 1992 SC 604. The Supreme Court has held in State of Haryana case that where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the F.I.R. should be quashed.

Supreme Court asks Bihar DGP, High Court Registrar General reasons behind 21 year delay

Supreme Court's Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose heard an appeal on October 15, 2020 filed by the accused husband in a dowry death case in Bachcha Pandey v State of Bihar [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4769/2020].The appeal arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated July 6, ­2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.21680/2020 passed by Justice Madhuresh Prasad of the Patna High Court. It upheld High Court's order. 

In its order, the Supreme Court observed: "The materials placed on record indicate a shocking state of affairs." The order records the sequence of events. In this case a First Information Report was registered as far back as on February 2, 1999 against Bachcha Pandey, the petitioner and some of his relatives under Sections 304B, 201 and 34, IPC based on a complaint made  by the brother of  the  deceased (wife  of  the  Petitioner). A perusal of the records suggest that the petitioner got married to the   deceased in 1993. The deceased was allegedly  harassed continuously by the petitioner and his family for dowry, and was even thrown out by the petitioner and his family, after they took her jewellery. The deceased apparently started living with the petitioner and his family again, consequent to an agreement prepared  by the petitioner in court. It was alleged by the complainant that he was informed by unknown persons about the death of his sister, whose funeral ceremonies were being completed by the petitioner and his family without informing the deceased’s side of the family.   

The court's order records that after nearly 10 years, a final report/charge­sheet was filed in the case against all the accused named in the FIR, including the petitioner, on September 30, 2009. The final report notes that “sufficient evidence has been made available for charge­sheet against all the accused  named in the FIR”.   

Besides this, the order dated February 14, 2020, passed by the Patna High Court while dismissing the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application, being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64116 of 2019, noted that as per the case diary a “very highly poisonous substance was detected in the viscera examination of the deceased”. 

The court observed that despite the seriousness of the allegations, it is quite alarming that no actions  were taken by the police against the petitioner. After the elapse of more than 20 years since the incident  and the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested in relation to the case only on June 7, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a bail application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge  which was rejected on June 12, 06.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a bail application before the High Court, being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21680 of 2020, which was dismissed vide  impugned order dated July 6, 2020. 

The court's order reads: "The flagrant delay in conducting the investigation and prosecution of the accused  in connection with the serious crime involving the death of a young married woman is extremely troubling, and the reasons for the same are unclear. In the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court, or to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. His plea is therefore dismissed at this stage." The petitioner from Vaishali had challenged the aforementioned order before the Supreme Court  by way of the present Special Leave Petition.  

The court issued notice to the Director General of Police, Bihar as well as the Registrar General of the Patna High Court with a direction to them to place before us a report about the particulars of the present case, particularly with respect to the reasons behind such inordinate delay. The matter is likely to be listed before the court on November 11-12 after four weeks.