Supreme Court grants bail to Shashi Kumar Ram, Justice Sandeep Kumar had denied it

In Shashi Kumar Ram vs, The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices  K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli passed a 3-page long order dated July 16, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"5. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending trial. 6. We direct that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, pending trial. 7. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms." 

The petitioner had questioned the correctness of the 2-page long order dated March 16, 2026 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court in Shashi Kumar Ram vs, The State of Bihar (2026) whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone approximately 7 months in custody, since he was arrested on December 29, 2025. He also submitted that the petitioner was roped in due to the confessional statement of the co-accused; there was no recovery of the contraband or incriminating material from the petitioner and the alleged recoveries have been made from the premises not owned, controlled and possessed by the petitioner. Taking the prosecution case at its highest, the petitioner was alleged to have handled the finances. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged activities like procurement, adulteration, storage or transportation. It was not in dispute that the other 4 accused are on bail.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No.523 of 2025 registered for the offence under sections 111, 303(2), 287, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, under section 3/4 of the Explosive substance Act and under section 7 of the E.C. Act. The petitioner and others were found manufacturing adulterated petrol. The petitioner was in custody since December 29, 2025. During investigation, it emerged that the petitioner is the financer behind the illicit business of manufacturing adulterated petrol. Kustice Kumar had declined to grant bail to the petitioner. 

Misconceived cognizance order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur quashed for being "contingent prosecution"

In Radhika Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (2014), by his order dated November 10, 2014 Justice Ashutosh Kumar of Patna High Court quashed the order dated March 24, 2011 passed in G.R. No. 82 of 2011, corresponding to a Pirpainti Police Station Case of 2011 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, by which he had taken cognizance against the petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The proceedings pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur was stayed by the order of Justice Shivaji Pandey on August 17, 2012. The case was filed in the High Court on May 10, 2011.

Prior to passing his final order, Justice Kumar recorded in his order dated October 20, 2014 that that the petitioners are the licensed dealers in fertilizer. On the report of Sudhakar Pandey, Block Agriculture Officer, Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, the Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged the First Information Report. The content of the First Information Report was that Opposite Party/Respondent No. 2, on enquiry had expressed suspicion that there is a possibility of the petitioners selling the fertilizer in black market. On such unfounded presumption, Sanjay Kumar, D.C.L.R., Kahalgoan, Bhagalpur, the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 3 launched the prosecution. The Court was "inclined to hear Opposite Party No. 3 as to how and under what circumstances he chose to file the First Information Report against the petitioners on such flimsy ground mainly the presumption of black marketing of fertilizer at the hands of the petitioners" but nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 although the record of the case revealed that "some advocate had appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 and had sought adjournment."

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that "such contingent prosecution is unheard of in criminal jurisprudence. The order records: "The counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 merely states that the F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of superior office of the administration." The order concluded: "Considering the above facts, the order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2011 in connection with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 6/2011 (G.R. No. 82/2011) under Section 7 of the E.C. Act appears to be misconceived. The same is quashed." It is apparent that superior officer was not taken to task for his act of omission and commission 

The other petitioners from Pirpainti, Bhagalpur were: Anil Kumar, Ram Krishna Khetan, Ashok Kumar Kataruka @ Ashok Kumar and Rabindra Kumar. The other three respondents were: Sudhakar Pandey, Block Agriculture Officer, Pirpainti, Bhagalpur and Sanjay Kumar, D.C.L.R., Kahalgoan, Bhagalpur.

Patna High Court sets aside orders of judicial officers from Madhubani and Jhanjharpur in a case under Essential Commodities Act

In Manoj Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court quashed and set aside the order dated December 15, 2023 passed by 9th/3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani in a Criminal Revision case as well as the cognizance order dated September 21, 2023 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur in connection with Ghoghardiha case of 2019. 

The application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order by 9th/3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Criminal Revision No.274 of 2023, whereby the trial court had affirmed the order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Jhanjharpur and had rejected the revision application of the petitioner as well as for quashing the cognizance order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, through which Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in connection the offence punishable under Section 409/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The Court observed:"The dispute in issue was purely commercial in nature, which was given a criminal colour to save its own officials, who were made accused in Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No.130 of 2019, where the District Magistrate, Madhubani was the informant." 

The judgement reads: "It can be said safely that out of oblique and ulterior motive to save their own officials, the BSFC/informant lodged this case against petitioner and particularly, in view of arbitration award as passed in Request Case No. 69 of 2020, where all issues between the parties appears settled, showing all balance in favour of petitioner, the continuing with present criminal proceeding before the learned trial court qua petitioner would only amount to abuse of the process of court of law."