Shashi Kant Ojha, Additional Sessions Judge I, Gaya convicts 5 persons for attempt to murder and murder in May 2020

Shashi Kant Ojha, Additional Sessions Judge I, Gaya delivered a judgement on October 9, 2025 and passed the sentencing order on October 14, 2025. The judgment was reserved on September 25, 2025. The judgement convicted Rakesh Kumar, Anil Yadav, Rambalak Yadav, Raj Kumar Verma and Sanjeev Kumar for committing offence of attempt to murder and murder by using illegal fire arms punishable under section U/s 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149, 341/149, 326/149, 506 and 504 of the I.P.C. and under section 27/35 of Arms Act. The incident took place on May 6, 2020. The F.IR. was lodged on the same day. The date of charge-sheet was August 6, 2020. The charges were framed on September 24, 2021. The date of commencement evidence was October 23, 2021. The date of statement was May 27, 2024.   

At the outset, all together six accused persons were facing trials namely 1. Rakesh Kumar, 2. Anil Yadav, 3. Rambalak Yadav, 4. Raj Kumar Verma, 5. Sanjeev Kumar and 6. Vimlesh Yadav.  

But in the course of trial case record of accused Vimlesh Kumar was split up vide order dated July 19, 2022 as Sessions Triai No. 307/2022 and thereafter only five accused persons namely 1. Rakesh Kumar, 2. Anil Yadav, 3. Rambalak Yadav, 4. Raj Kumar Verma and 5. Sanjeev Kumar  faced trial. 

The case of prosecution as per written application of informant Abhiram Sharma stating therein that on May 6, 2020 at about 12:00 O'clock in the noon, he was sitting at his shop in the village Sinduari. 

In the mean time villagers Uday Sharma Kaushik, S/o- Baikunth Sharma, Girjesh Sharma Kaushik, S/o- Vamdeo Singh, Srinath Kumar, S/o-Brajesh Kumar Kaushik, Birenra Kumar, S/o- Late Jagdish Singh came at his cement shop for purchasing goods and he was selling goods to them in sequence. 

In the mean while co-villager Rakesh Yadav, Vimlesh Yadav, Anil Yadav, Rambalak Yadav, Raj Kumar Verma and Sanjeev Kumar came out from their house having armed with rifal and started abusing. Rakesh Yadav ordered to kill them by saying they are Bhumihar

All accused persons started firing. Rakesh Yadav fired upon Uday Sharma Kaushik, which hit on his head. Vimlesh Yadav fired upon Girjesh Sharma Kaushik, which hit his stomach and due to that he fled down. Anil Yadav fired upon Girjesh Sharma, which hit his chest. Raj Kumar Verma shot fire upon Srinath, which hit his stomach, due to which he fled down. Rambalak Yadav shot fire upon Birendra Kumar, which hit his leg. Sanjeev Kumar ran away towards the informant and started firing, anyhow he fled towards village making noise. There were other persons also present with the Sanjeev Kumar. He claimed to identify after seeing them. 

On hearing his noise villagers came at the place of occurrence and after seeing the villagers all accused persons fled away giving threat to kill them by saying deprive the village of Bhumihar. The villagers took injured person to Hospital but injured Uday Sharma Kaushik died on the way and injured Girjesh Sharma Kaushik, Srinath Sharma and Virendra Kumar brought to Jai Prakash Hospital, Gaya but for the better treatment they were referred to Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna but Girjesh Sharma Kaushik died on the way of Patna. The main reason of this incident was that a quarrel took place near Bank at Konch in between Manjeet Yadav, S/o- Ajay Yadav and a boy of Bhumihar and due to which this occurrence took place. 

SIT probe by Economic Offences Unit ordered in Gaya land case: Patna High Court

In Cleartech Farming Private Limited v. State of Bihar, Patna High Court has passed a judgement directing the D.G.P., Bihar to get P.S. Case No. 144 of 2023, Amas Thana, Gaya investigated through a SIT headed by an officer of repute in the Economic Offences Unit. It underlined that investigation required into the role of various officials of the State involved in the Consolidation Office, Circle Office, Aamas and Office of the Sub-Registrar, Aamas, in the District of Gaya. The D.G.P., Bihar has been made the competent authority to pass such other order/orders as may be required to unveil the truth.

The petitioner is a private limited company represented through its Director, Shyam Kishore Prasad. The petitioner purchased 23 acres 6 decimal lands by a registered sale deed dated July 25, 2017 from one Khuaza Iradat Jan and his family members.  The petitioner has alleges that on January, 2023 when Shyam Kishore Prasad was getting the land leveled through his contractor, some antisocial elements armed with deadly weapons came to the land of the petitioner and threatened the Director by saying that the land belonged to them, he must leave it otherwise he will be killed. The efforts taken by the Director to convince them that the land belong to the petitioner-company and it has been purchased through registered sale deed went in vain. The specific case of the petitioner is that the Director of the Company was threatened by Jacky Yadav of Gaya along with his associates who were armed with deadly weapons. The petitioner visited Aamas police station on February 6, 2023 and handed over a written application for lodging of the FIR. The FIR was not registered at that time. It was registered on April 19, 2023 but the investigating agency did not take any action to remove them from the site. It is a case of forceful dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question by use of unlawful means taking the law unto his hands. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted that it is the duty of the State to protect the life and property of its citizen. The life of the Director of the petitioner-company and the property of the petitioner are under grave threat and despite complaints lodged with the police, the administration has not taken appropriate steps to dispossess the illegal occupants who have forcibly come on the land of the petitioner. Relying on the judgment of the High Court in the case of Harrison Continental Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Bihar (2022), he submitted that in this case the Court drew from several judgments of the Supreme Court to hold that the illegal occupants should not have been allowed to stay in the premises and had to be removed by the police as it was a brazen act of lawlessness. The accused has forcibly invaded the premises of the petitioner and has thrown the petitioner in the said case out of the property.

With regard to the issue of title and possession of the land in question, the Court observed that the parties be left free to seek their remedies before appropriate court. It recorded that the manner in which revised khatiyan has been prepared showing Case No. 39 of 1990 but a bare order sheet of Case No. 43 of 1990 has been produced before this Court without there being any record to support the basis of the initiation of the proceeding, smacks of forgery and fabrication of the records. Involvement of the officials engaged in the work of consolidation, preparation of khatiyan and revised khatiyan are required to be enquired into. It asked, "How two mutation cases were opened and the competent authority in the Circle Office allowed mutation in favour of both the parties are prima-facie some of the questions which are to be resolved after conducting appropriate enquiry/investigation." It was submitted that it is a case of forgery and fabrication of records in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Aamas. It was stated that the sale deed mentions payment of a consideration amount of Rs. 1,26,80,000/- vide different cheques but this also seems to be highly suspicious and requires verification because the PAN number of the so-called persons who are said to have been paid are missing and there is no mention of deduction of one percent income tax at source on the sale consideration.

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad of Patna High Court observed that "It is well settled that in an appropriate case a civil as well as criminal proceeding can go together." He drew the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi (1999) in this regard. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya has been directed to maintain law and order on the spot/land in question and unless and until an order of adjudication as to right, title and possession or an appropriate order is passed by a court of competent jurisdiction/competent authority in accordance with law neither party shall be allowed to go on the land in question.

Ensure compliance with Police Manual to deal with missing arms and cartridges: Chief Justice Vinod Chandran

In pursuance of public interest, Rohit Kumar, the petitioner, a practicing advocate sought an audit as well as physical verification of the arms and ammunition as well as records of arsenal and armoury kept with the Bihar Police, including the Bihar Military Police, which are situated at District Headquarters (Police Line) and the Headquarters of Bihar Military Police. 

The petitioner had filed CWJC No.11642 of 2021 in the Patna High Court. The petitioner had prayed for setting up of a Special Team by the Patna High Court to investigate cases registered under Samsatipur and Siwan Mufassil Police Stations in relation to missing of huge cache of ammunition.

The petitioner relied on the report of the Accountant General (Audit) about missing of arms and cartridges from the arsenal of Darbhanga Police Line in February 2019. He had alleged that the police officials themselves are responsible for missing of arms and ammunition, which find their way to the hands of extremists/miscreants/criminals. The Superintendent of Police(E), CID, Bihar, Patna has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that in pursuance to the order of the Court dated August 2, 2021, details of the progress of the investigation in the referred crimes were called for. 

The order records that with respect to the Samastipur Muffasil Police Station case, 10 persons, who were from the police force itself, were arraigned as accused and on investigation, it was found that 7 of them were involved in the incident. The Investigating Officer has also requested for issuance of arrest warrant against the accused persons. 

With respect to the Siwan Mufassil Police Station case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against two Sub-Inspectors and a Constable and punishment has been inflicted on them. 

With respect to the Konch Police Station case, 18 police personnel were arraigned as accused and Charge Sheet No. 50 of 2019 dated March 9, 2019 had been submitted in the court against five of them. It was also stated that further investigation is going on against some other named persons also. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga had reported vide Annexure-D that there was no case of missing arms’ cache reported in the District Police Lines.

In the counter affidavit, it was also pointed out from Police Manual (Vol-1) that an annual report of arms, ammunition, equipment and stores, as on 31st March previous year, is to be submitted to the Assistant Inspector General in Police Manual Form No. 169 on the 1st of May by all districts. The certification to be made in the said form is to the effect that the articles are duly accounted for and the balance corrected, with any variation also to be indicated. Strict compliance of the Police Manual Rule is directed through Memo No. 1991 dated 16.08.2021, communicated to all the Range I.G./D.I.G./S.S.Ps and S.Ps. of Bihar. As of now, it is submitted that there is regular compliance of the Police Manual insofar as the certification to be submitted on the close of year. 

Police Manual Rule Nos. 1096, 1097 and 1098 containing detailed procedure for inspection of arms and ammunition, is also specifically referred to. The responsibility to carry out such inspection has been conferred on the Range DIG/IG and the Arms and Ammunition Inspection Team from the Police Headquarters, Patna would also be carried out. As of now, in every district, officers and men from Armory Cadre have been posted to ensure proper upkeep and maintenance of arms and ammunition. Annexure-F is the detailed report submitted by the Dy.S.P. (Armoury), Central Arms Workshop and Stores, Patna for the last five years, which inspection was carried out by the Central Arms Inspection Team. 

A supplementary counter affidavit was filed pursuant to the orders of High Court dated October 5, 2021 regarding the present status of verification of the arms and ammunition and also the investigation in cases. 

In the Samastipur Mufassil Police Station case, departmental proceedings were initiated against many named accused police officials and four have been dismissed from service after they were found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings. 

As far as the Siwan Police Station case, it was found that 35 round cartridges were allotted to a police constable and the same were robbed from him, which has also been written off from the district records. A similar article of theft having been revealed in the investigation, has also been placed on record. One pistol, which was found missing, was also deposited in the armory by the allottee, afterwards. The reports of the Superintendents of Police, Samastipur, Siwan and Gaya are produced as Annexure- A, B and C in the supplementary affidavit.

The Court observed that "We are of the opinion that the department has been cautioned on the subject matter sought to be agitated before this Court in the above writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. We see that the Police Manual also has sufficient precautionary measures to ensure the proper up keep of the armouries and enable periodic inspection of the same. Sufficient progress has also been made in the cases registered in Samastipur, Siwan and Gaya Police Stations."

The Court did not set up any Special Team to investigate cases registered under Samsatipur and Siwan Mufassil Police Stations in relation to missing of huge cache of ammunition, as per the prayer of the petitioner. The Court concluded that "We are of the opinion that the writ petition can now been disposed of directing the Department and its officials to ensure due compliance of the Police Manual." The bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad decided the case on April 18, 2023. The order was authored by the Chief Justice.