Bihar's Department of Home directed to apprise High Court about number of cases where inquiries have been instituted after it pointed out lapses of prosecution and investigation

In Upendra Yadav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court’s Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish delivered a 94-pagelong judgement dated October 13, 2026, wherein, it concluded: “114. In ultimate analysis, we find that, though, it is a case of unfortunate killing of four persons in the dead of night, due to complete indifferent attitude of the investigating agency, proper and fair investigation could not take place. We can see on the face of the materials on the record that the administration, responsible to conduct a free and fair investigation, had a different plan whereunder they remained totally inactive, grossly negligent and in the process did not abide by their own instructions/guidelines etc. in the matter of investigation of a criminal case….116. In result, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court and acquit the appellants of the charges giving them benefit of doubt. The appellants are said to be in custody, they shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 117. These appeals are allowed. 118. Before we part with this judgment, it would be necessary to observe that, though, it is a case of unfortunate killing of four persons in the dead of night, due to complete indifferent attitude of the investigating agency, proper and fair investigation could not take place. Further, we can see on the face of the materials on the record clearly show that the administration, responsible to conduct a free and fair investigation, had a different plan whereunder they remained totally inactive, grossly negligent and in the process did not abide by their own instructions/guidelines etc. in the matter of investigation of a criminal case…." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad.    

Justice Prasad issued directions to the State. It reads: "121. In recent times, this Court has given directions to the Department of Home, Government of Bihar and the DGP, Bihar to look into the matters in which due to lapses on the part of the Investigating Officers, acquittals have taken place. It is not known whether the orders of this Court are being complied with and the directions in this regard have yielded any significant result. In the opinion of this Court, it is high time for the Department of Home, Government of Bihar, the DGP, Bihar and the Director, Directorate of Prosecution to sit together and review its policy in this regard. 122. We are of the opinion that the manner in which the Investigation Agency has conducted the investigation negligently, which has been discussed in preceding paragraphs, would be required to be reviewed by a team of Senior Police Officers. 123. We direct the Director General of Police, Bihar to constitute a three-member committee of Senior Police Officers of repute to take a view on the manner in which the investigation was done by the I.O. and based on that report, take an appropriate view of the matter in administrative side within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this Judgment. 124. The action taken in this regard be informed to the appellants. The appellants shall be at liberty to pursue the matter. 125. This Court calls upon the Department of Home, Government of Bihar to apprise the Court as to its policy in the matter of reviewing the cases where lapses on the part of the prosecution and the investigation have been pointed out by this Court. In how many cases inquiries have been instituted and with what result be informed to this Court within one month from today. Such report of the Department of Home shall be placed before this Court for perusal even as these appeals stand allowed. 126. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Department of Home Government of Bihar, Office of the Director General of Police, Bihar and the Director, Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Bihar.”

The appeal was heard and adjudicated along with the appeals in Binda Yadav @ Binda Lal Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Mithilesh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Chandraghosh @ Chandrabhushan Singh @ Chandragosh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Ajay Yadav & Ors. vs.  The State of Bihar and Ramkrishna Yadav @ Krishna Kumar & Anr.The State of Bihar.   

These appeals were preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated April 3, 2023 and the order of sentence dated April 12, 2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial Case No. 65 of 1998 arising out of Karpi (Arwal) P.S. Case No. 68 of 1996. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned order, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 IPC and further, under Section 307/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.3,000/- each. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

The prosecution case was based on the fardbeyan of informant Shiv Narayan Singh (P.W 12). The fardbeyan was recorded by S.I. Laliteshwar Pandey (P.W 27) Officer in-charge of Sahar Telpa (O.P.) on August 9, 1996 at 5.00 am at Keyal Aahar near place of occurrence. The informant alleged that there is a big Ahar situated in north-west side of his village where water get stored for irrigation, the villagers of Asadhi used to cut the Ahar and, therefore, due to aforesaid reason they were watching bandh and on the said night, the informant along with Bharat Singh (deceased) Manger Singh (deceased), Ram Niwas Singh (deceased) and Nawlesh Singh (deceased), Pramod Kumar (injured P.W 13), Karu Kurmi (P.W 2), Gung Kurmi (P.W 3) and Ravi Kurmi (P.W 21) were watching the said Ahar and they were in the Jhopari (hut) and on the alleged date in night i.e. September 8, 1996 at 11 pm, they heard movement (Ahat), he made query “who are you”, then 30-40 unknown persons who were wearing half pant and ganji, came near the Jhopera armed with rifle and gun and one person told that they belong to a Party and asked them to be mum. Further it is alleged that some persons came from western side and some remained in Eastern side. Further it is alleged that from western side one person came and took a lathi from Jhopari and assaulted Karu Kurmi, he also started assaulting Bharat Singh with lathi and further one person who was standing on eastern side flashed the torch and another person standing by the side of that person fired with rifle at Manger Singh causing injury on his right eye, the said person caused firearm injury to Bharat Singh on right hand and on neck and thereafter, the another person caused fire-arm injury to Ram Niwash Singh on right neck who died on the way to hospital and the same person caused fire-arm injury to Navlesh Singh causing injury on his neck. According to the informant, the same person also caused fire-arm injury to injured Pramod Kumar who was brought to Hospital, Jehanabad and further an another person assaulted Premnath Singh on his hand by lathi and thereafter, they went towards western side from the Bandh. It is further alleged that fifteen to thirty minutes after going of the accused persons, the informant, Bhola Singh, Premnath Singh, Karu Kurmi, Gung Kurmi, Ravi Kurmi were going towards eastern side of the village and on the way so many persons met in the raasta who were coming towards Bandh after hearing the sound of firing and thereafter they came to Jhopari and flashed the torch and found that Manger Singh, Nawlesh Singh and Bharat Singh had already died, Ram Niwas Singh and Pramod Singh were in injured condition. Some of them were crying and then some remained there for watching the dead body and some persons took Pramod Singh and Ram Niwash Singh to Hospital and some persons went to police for informing. Further, later on he got to know that Ram Niwas Singh died in the way and Premnath Singh was taken to Jehanabad Hospital. Further he also got to know that one accused person sustained fire-arm injury who was taken away by the accused persons and in clear words the informant stated in the fardbeyan that this crime has been committed by Majdoor Kisan Sangram Parishad (M.K.S.P) Extremists, the informant and his associates have seen some of the accused persons from close range and they claimed to identify them by face, if shown to them. The fardbeyan was recorded by S.I Laliteshwar Pandey (P.W 27) on which Premnath Singh (P.W 8) also signed. 

On the basis of the fardbeyan Karpi P.S. Case No. 68 of 1996 dated August 9, 1996 was registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 342, 323, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against unknown 30-40 M.K.S.P. extremists. After investigation police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 79 of 1996 dated November 15, 1996 against twenty four accused persons, namely, (1) Dharm Dev Yadav, (2) Dhananjay Yadav, (3) Sushil Kumar, (4) Rajaram Yadav, (5) Mithlesh Yadav, (6) Bipin Yadav, (7) Rajendra Yadav, (8) Paras Yadav, (9) Ram Krishan Yadav @ Krishan Kumar, (10) Ajay Yadav, (11) Baijnath Yadav, (12) Bhagwan Yadav, (13) Ramnarayan Yadav, (14) Chandraghosh @Chandrabhushan Singh, (15) Baleshwar Yadav, (16) Daya Singh, (17) Satyendra Singh, (18) Vishwanath Singh, (19) Upendra Yadav, (20) Binda Yadav, (21) Naresh Yadav, (22) Ramraj Singh, (23) Basant Yadav (absconder) and (24) Nagendra Yadav (absconder).

By order dated January 18, 1997 cognizance of the offences under Sections 302, 342, 323, 307, 212, 201/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was taken. Sufficient materials were found to proceed against them. Thereafter, vide order dated January 19, 1998, the Magistrate directed the Office to prepare the police papers for supply to the accused persons in attendance. The Magistrate observed that all the processes were exhausted for securing presence of two absconded accused persons namely Nagendra Yadav and Basant Yadav and disposed of the Trial No. 453 of 1998 relating to the above two accused persons declaring them absconder and directed to deposit the records in the record room. The trial No. 302 of 1997 pertaining to rest of the twenty two accused were committed to the court of sessions where trial court numbered the trial as Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1998. Charges were read over and explained to the twenty two accused persons in Hindi which they denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1998 vide order dated July 21, 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

During trial, accused, namely, Raja Ram Yadav died and proceeding against him stood abated vide order dated November 16, 2011. Further, Paras Yadav died on January 18, 2023 in the hospital and vide order dated February 2, 2023, proceeding against him also abated. So far as one absentee accused Ram Narayan Yadav is concerned, vide order dated December 16, 2014, separate record was opened against him being Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2014. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twenty seven witnesses and exhibited several documents. 

Justice Prasad observed:"The I.O’s of this case damaged the prosecution case by not following the safe rule of prudence to go for T.I.P. In absence of T.I.P., there is no corroborative evidence to the testimony of these witnesses on the identification. 101. This Court finds that both the I.O.s failed in their duty to conduct a bonafide fair investigation in this case. They decided not to apply for T.I.P. Even the senior police officers like Superintendent of Police did not supervise the ongoing investigation, they failed to ensure proper and fair investigation. It seems they were bent upon hushing up the whole prosecution case right from beginning. 102. In the kind of evidence present on the record, it is evident that in a case of brutal murder of four persons, the investigation was not proper, even as the informant had disclosed in the fardbeyan that the villagers from Asadhi village used to breach/cut the ahar which serves as storage of water for irrigation and that the accused were persons of sangathan and the name of Dhananjay Singh and other accused who were resident of village had come in course of investigation of the case, no effort was made to conduct a raid in their houses to seize the firearms which were used in the occurrence." 

Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna who is an amicus curiae in the special laws/courts matter said, "The High Court intervenes whenever it finds that there were lapses on the part of the prosecution and there was negligent investigation in cases have erred in their approach toward offenders, and acted contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court." He added: "Now Bihar's Department of Home is under obligation to apprise High Court about the number of cases where inquiries have been instituted after the Court pointed out lapses of prosecution and investigation. Justice Prasad's judgement is a lesson in how to write a judgement for all the judges of the High Court and the trial court."

 

Supreme Court asks Niraj Kumar, Investigating Officer, Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023 to personally remain present for questioning in a murder case of January 2023 from Sheikhpura, Patna

In Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 1-page long order dated October 14, 2026, wherein, it observed: "....we are of the view that we should ask the Investigating Officer to personally remain present before this Court as we want to put few questions. 3. Post this matter on 16-10-2026 on top of the Board." Niraj Kumar is the Investigating Officer in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023. 

In this very related case, in Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma has passed a 6-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In his order Justice Verma has recorded that "the Investigating Officer was cross-examined who stated that he had seen the CCTV footage but the CCTV Camera was of low quality in which three bikes were visible, people were coming but faces were not clearly visible which amply demonstrates that the petitioner was not identified based on the CCTV footage." This was in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 116 of 2023, registered on January 30, 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by Vaidnath Sah, the informant who is grandfather of the deceased. The offence was committed near Durga Mandir, Sheikhpura, Patna at 8 PM on January 30, 2023.  

In Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026),  Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 4-page long order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State and, thus, the second anticipatory bail application is dismissed in connection with Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Patna/Successor Court with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioners or the deponent of the case shall deposit with the Legal Aid of the Patna High Court." 

A.P.P. for the State also submitted that since name of the petitioners transpired based in the confessional statement of apprehended accused and the case is of killing of the grandson of the informant, as such, the case requires investigation and interrogation of the accused persons. It was further submitted that no doubt, confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law but then for the purposes of investigation and interrogation the police can use the confessional statement for corroboration. It was next submitted that from perusal of the second anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that the same has been filed not on grounds of changed circumstances but the order rejecting the anticipatory bail application is being assailed on merits. It is, thus, submitted that if petitioners were aggrieved by the order rejecting their anticipatory bail application, in that event, they could have moved before the Supreme Court. It was also submitted that the case is of the year 2023 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner and while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner by order dated 17.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 83768 of 2025, the fact that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued was also taken into consideration.

The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail application of the petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners had earlier moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 83768 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated February 17, 2026. It was next submitted that Anand Kumar and Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, who are named in the FIR, have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court but then the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value, stands rejected, though they are not named in the FIR on which Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P. submitted that Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, who is named accused in the FIR, was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail for the reason recorded in the order dated March 18, 2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 14308 of 2026. It was also submitted that even Anand Kumar, who is named in the FIR, was also granted the privilege of anticipatory bail for reasons recorded in the order dated July 11, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 22117 of 2023. It was also  submitted that as far as petitioners are concerned, though they are not named in the FIR but then their names transpired in the case based on the confessional statement of apprehended accused, who were arrested, during the course of investigation by the police, finding their involvement in the occurrence of killing of the grandson of the informant. It was also submitted that with respect to Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, the order dated March 18, 2026 recorded that he is a resident of Bihta whereas in the FIR, the accused, namely, Abhijeet Kumar was a resident of Shivpuri and the police without investigating the said aspect in a mechanical manner was after him and the said facts stand recorded in detail in the order dated 18.03.2026. It was also submitted that Anand Kumar, who was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, was granted the said privilege for the reason that the apprehended accused, whose involvement was found in the occurrence, had not named him, it was also submitted that the informant of the case is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, as such, Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar and Anand Kumar came to be implicated in the FIR based on suspicion.

Prior to this in Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 2-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he refused  anticipatory bail. The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 116 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The senior counsel for the petitioners had submitted that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleged that accused persons along with some unknown accused shot his grandson near a Chowmein shop leading to his death. He also submitted that Anand Kumar Singh @ Anand had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 22117 of 2023 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated July 11, 2023 but then fairly submitted that the case of the petitioners was not similar to the case of Anand as name of the petitioners transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody but then name of Anand was not disclosed in the confessional statement of apprehended accused. It was also fairly submitted that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued. The A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

In a related case in Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 6-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he granted anticipatory bail.  

Justice Verma has recorded that the submission of the petitioner's counsel that petitioner was a person with clean antecedent and was a young boy aged about 23 years. But the informant has alleged that petitioner along with five named accused persons and some unknown accused shot his grandson near the Chowmin Shop leading to his death. The senior counsel submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would be manifest that informant is grandfather of the deceased and he alleged that his grandson was shot dead by the accused persons but he is not an eyewitness to the occurence. The FIR itself manifests that the public disclosed the name of the assailants who committed the occurrence of murder. Abhijeet Kumar, the resident of Shivpuri, is an accused in the FIR by name but then the parentage of Abhijeet Kumar is not dislcosed in the FIR. It was submitted that the name of the petitioner is Abhijeet Raj @Abhijeet Kumar and not Abhijeet Kumar who is son of Late Ajay Kumar Singh and is resident of Surya Mandir Road Srirampur, Sirirampur, Bihta, Police Station Bihta, Patna. It was also submitted that petitioner was not even aware that an FIR was instituted in which the police without investigating the case in its correct perspective is looking for the petitioner. It was also submitted that during the course of investigation Aman, Shivji and Avinash were arrested and from perusal of their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it would be manifest that they have named one Abhijeet Kumar but have not dislcosed the parentage and added that he was a resident of Shivpuri. It was submitted that even the apprehended accused have not dislcosed that Abhijeet Kumar who was involved in the occurrence is a resident of Bihta. It was submitted that during the course of investigation, no material transpired even to remotely connect the petitioner with the offence on the ground that he is a resident of Shivpuri in the district of Patna. It was also submitted that during the course of investigation, it has come that bystanders from the CCTV footage had identified the assailants of the deceased and the petitioner was also identified. It was further submitted that if what has come during the course of investigation that petitioner was identified based on CCTV footage by bystanders in that event definitely the case is not for anticipatory bail but then it was submitted that Shivji was arrested and was convicted by the trial court by judgment dated September 4, 2025 in a case of 2023. It was next submitted that in the trial, the Investigating Officer was cross-examined who stated that he had seen the CCTV footage but the CCTV Camera was of low quality in which three bikes were visible, people were coming but faces were not clearly visible which amply demonstrates that the petitioner was not identified based on the CCTV footage. It was also submitted that the informant of the case was also cross-examined in the trial of Shivji and dislcosed that he had identified the assailant of his grandson but was not knowing his name but in the trial he identified Shivji as the assailant and also stated that he had not seen any other accused persons. It is also submitted that petitioner is a student and is pursuing his B.Tech. (Computer Science) from Sharda University, Greater Noida.

 

Supreme Court sets aside judgement by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh in a criminal case from Beerpur, Begusarai

In Manoj Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan passed a 7-page long order dated October 5, 2026, wherein, it granted leave and concluded: "Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail sought. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 5.02.2026. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties."

This appeal had challenged the order dated February 5, 2026 passed by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the Patna High Court. The appeal arose out of crime registered pursuant to FIR No.121 of 2023 dated July 23, 2023 lodged with PS Birpur District Begusarai, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379, 308, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 147 deals with punishment for rioting, Section 341 deals with wrongful restraint. Section 323 deals with voluntarily causing hurt. Section 379 deals with punishment for theft. Section 308 deals with  attempt to commit culpable homicide. Section 504 deals with intentional insult to provoke breach of peace. Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. While sections like 323, 341, and 504 are relatively minor and bailable, the inclusion of Section 308 makes it a major case. Anticipating arrest in connection with this crime, the appellants had preferred a criminal miscellaneous application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

By order dated August 6, 2026, the Supreme Court had issued notice in the instant matter, while granting interim protection from arrest to the appellant. The appellant's counsel submitted before the Supreme Court that in the instant case the investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has also been filed as against the appellant herein. The appellant has cooperated with the investigation. In the circumstances, the impugned order may be made absolute as two other co-accused have also been granted the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Earlier, in Manoj Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court had passed a 1-page long order dated February 5, 2026, wherein, he observed and concluded:""2. This is second anticipatory bail petition. Earlier, the petition, filed for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner, stood rejected, vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61306 of 2024. 3 . This application does not reveal any change of circumstances or new ground. 4. In view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 176, the second anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 

Prior to this, in Manoj Sah & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Singh had passed a 3-page long order dated September 25, 2024, wherein, he drew on the submission of the APP of the State to that ".....there is specific accusation of assault against these petitioners and injuries allegedly caused by Petitioner No. 1 have been opined to be grievous in nature", he concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and nature of injury sustained by informant the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 1 is rejected. 7. Considering the fact that there is general and omnibus allegation of assault against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 , in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks from today, let the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 , as named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Begusarai in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2023 , subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of." The other two petitioners were: Pradeep Sah and Sonu Sah. 

The petitioners had approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 147, 341 , 323 , 308 , 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date and time of occurrence, on the order of co-accused Sujit Kumar, these petitioners, along with other co-accused persons started assaulting the informant and his son Gautam Kumar with lathi-rod and khanti with the intention to kill them. It is next alleged that co-accused, Sujit, assaulted the informant's son with khanti on his head, causing injury to him. Petitioner No. 1 Manoj Sah, assaulted informant with lathi on his head, but the same hit on his hand, and he got a severe injury and fell on the ground. Thereafter, these petitioners assaulted informant with lathi, rod, and khanti. When the son of informant Gaurav Kumar and his wife came to save them, then these petitioners brutally assaulted them with lathi, rod, and khanti. It is further alleged that co-accused Jaymala Devi, snatched mangalsutra from the neck of the informant's wife . Petitioner no. 3 took out Rs. two thousand from the pocket of the informant. 4. It is submitted on behalf of these petitioners that both parties are agnates and dispute arose between them over partition of land for which a simple occurrence of maarpeet took place between them. Case and counter case . Allegation of assault is general and omnibus against these petitioners.

Supreme Court has reversed the order by Justice Singh.  

Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra set aside judgment by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lakhisarai in a murder case

In Subhash Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra delivered a 23-page long judgement dated September 29, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"33. We, therefore, find that in this case, the learned trial court has grossly erred in appreciation of the evidences available on the record. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 34. In result, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2022 and the order of sentence dated 08.12.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2020, arising out of Lakhisarai (Ramgarh Chowk) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2019. The accused-appellant is acquitted of all the charges, giving him benefit of doubt. The appellant is said to be in
jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 35. This appeal stands allowed." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad. 

The appellant had preferred the appeal for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated December 6, 2022 and the order of sentence dated December 8, 2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2020, which arose out of a Lakhisarai (Ramgarh Chowk) P.S. Case of 2019. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341/34, 324/34, 326/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.500/. He was also sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/. The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/. 

The prosecution story was based on the fardbeyan of Birju Yadav (deceased) recorded by ASI Anil Kumar of P.S. Ramgarh Chowk at Emergency Ward, Sadar Hospital at 17:20 hrs on January 18, 2019 wherein he had alleged that on January 18, 2019 at about 03:00 P.M., while he was cutting grass in his field, his villagers namely (1) Vikash Yadav, (2) Subhash Yadav, (3) Mukesh Yadav and (4) Rajesh Yadav came armed with sword and other weapon and assaulted him with intention to kill. It was alleged that Vikash Yadav assaulted the informant with a Talwar on his right leg causing cut injuries at 2-3 places. Subhash Yadav (the appellant) assaulted him with katta on his left causing injuries at 2-3 places. It was further alleged that Mukesh Yadav assaulted the informant on his head resulting in 2-3 cut injuries and Rajesh Yadav assaulted him with a katta, causing injuries to his right wrist and hand. It was alleged that all four accused persons assaulted the informant with deadly weapon due to which he sustained various injuries on his body. The informant stated that this occurrence took place due to previous enmity. On the basis of his fardbeyan recorded at Sadar Hospital, Lakhisarai, Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No. 56 of 2019 dated January 18, 2019 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 120B and 34 of the IPC against (1) Vikash Yadav, (2) Subhash Yadav, (3) Mukesh Yadav and (4) Rajesh Yadav. During the course of treatment, the informant succumbed to his injuries on January 19, 2019, whereafter Section 302
I.P.C. was added. 

After investigation, Police submitted a charge-sheet bearing Chargesheet No. 473 of 2019 dated October 9, 2019 against the appellant Subhash Yadav for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, keeping the investigation pending against (1) Vikash Yadav, (2) Mukesh Yadav and (3) Rajesh Yadav.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakshisarai  vide order February 17, 2020 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC against the appellant Subhash Yadav and committed the records to the Court of Sessions on March 2, 2020. Accordingly, vide order dated November 16, 2021 charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 326/34, 341/149, 307/34, 302/34 and 120B IPC against accused-appellant Subhash Yadav. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.  In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and got exhibited several documents. 

The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences, held that the homicidal death of Birju Yadav stood established on the basis of the evidence of Dr. Shiv Ranjan Kumar (PW-4), postmortem report, inquest report and other materials on record. The Trial Court treated the fardbeyan of the deceased, recorded by Anil Kumar (PW-8) at Sadar Hospital, Lakhisarai, as a dying declaration and held that the same was admissible even in the absence of a medical certificate regarding the fitness of the deceased, particularly when the recording witness had stated that the deceased was in a fit condition to give his statement. The specific allegation against the appellant Subhash Yadav of assaulting the deceased with a Katta was found corroborated by the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and the medical evidence. The Trial Court further rejected the defence objections regarding the related nature of the prosecution witnesses, non-examination of independent witnesses, alleged inconsistencies and the plea of alibi, holding that the prosecution witnesses were consistent on material particulars and their evidence inspired confidence, whereas the defence failed to establish the plea of alibi with requisite certainty. The Trial Court also held that previous enmity between the parties could not, by itself, discredit the prosecution case and concluded that the appellant, along with the co-accused, had assaulted the deceased and shared common intention in commission of the offence. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Sections 341/34, 324/34, 326/34 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. On the point of sentence, considering that there was no material to show that the appellant had inflicted more than one blow or that the murder was committed in a brutal manner, the Trial Court held that the case did not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases and sentenced the appellant to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341/34, three years under Section 324/34, seven years under Section 326/34 and imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C., with respective fines and directed payment of the fine to the dependent of the deceased besides recommending compensation through the District Legal Services Authority. 

The appellant's counsel submitted that the prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities from its very inception. It was submitted that the formal F.I.R. was registered fifty minutes prior to the recording of the fardbeyan of the deceased, which was projected as the basis of the F.I.R. PW-1, Mauli Yadav @ Anmol Kumar, nephew of the deceased, has stated that he had made his statement before the police at Sadar Hospital at about 4:30 P.M. on January 18, 2019, whereas the fardbeyan of the deceased was recorded at 5:20 P.M., however, the statement of PW-1, being the earliest version, was not made the basis of the F.I.R. It was submitted that the first version of the prosecution case was suppressed. He also submitted that the alleged fardbeyan cannot be safely treated as a dying declaration as there was no medical certification regarding the fitness of the deceased to make the statement, rather, PW-8, A.S.I. Anil Kumar, admitted that the doctor treating the deceased had not granted permission for recording his statement. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2024) 2 SCC 411. It was submitted that PW-4, Dr. Shiv Ranjan Kumar, had found as many as ten ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, yet no treatment papers or medical records from Sadar Hospital, Lakhisarai or Patna Medical College Hospital was produced to establish that the deceased was in a fit physical and mental condition to make such a detailed statement. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Sahu & Anr. vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2637. He submitted that the Investigating Officer stated that the further statement of the deceased was recorded through videography but the said videographic evidence was not produced before the Trial Court, though it would have been a material piece of evidence for appreciating the condition and manner of making the alleged statement. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178. It was also submitted that the alleged dying declaration was not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and therefore the said incriminating circumstance could not have been relied upon against him. In this regard, counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the High Court in Munna Shukla vs. State of Bihar reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Pat 1980 and the judgment of Supreme Court in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913. The appellant's counsel submitted that material inconsistencies exist regarding the motive, inasmuch as the fardbeyan refers to prior enmity, whereas, PW-2 refers to rangdaari as the reason for the occurrence. The defence brought on record documents relating to the criminal antecedents of the deceased. It was lastly submitted that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW-2 himself stated that his statement was not recorded by the police and the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at the place of occurrence does not find mention in the fardbeyan of the deceased or the subsequent fardbeyan of PW-3. Thus, according to counsel, once the alleged dying declaration was found to be doubtful and excluded from consideration, the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of doubt. 

Justice Prasad observed: "A perusal of the enclosure to the formal F.I.R. would show that it has been drawn on the basis of the fardbeyan of Birju Yadav (since deceased) recorded by A.S.I. Anil Kumar (PW-8) in the Emergency Ward of Sadar Hospital, Lakhisarai at 17:20 hrs on 18.01.2019. It is evident that the time of recording of formal F.I.R. is fifty minutes prior to the recording of the fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘P- 1/2’). In this regard, we have also noticed from the deposition of Mauli Yadav @ Anmol Kumar (PW-1), who is the nephew of the deceased, that he claims to have made statement before police in the Sadar Hospital on 18.01.2019 at 4:30 P.M. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt that prior to recording of the fardbeyan of the victim, the statement of PW-1 had already been recorded at 4:30 P.M., but this statement has not been made basis of lodging of the F.I.R. It is for this reason, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the first version of the prosecution case which came through PW-1 has been suppressed. We are of the opinion that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as regard suppression of the first version cannot be thrown away." 

The High Court noticed that the fardbeyan of Birju Yadav (deceased) was recorded by A.S.I. Anil Kumar (P.W.-8) in the Sadar Hospital, Lakhisarai. It was witnessed by Alakh Yadav (son of the deceased), who has deposed as PW-3 but as regards the mental state and fitness of the victim to make statement, no certification was done by any Doctor of the hospital. PW-8 stated in paragraph '3' of his deposition that the doctor who was treating Birju Yadav had not granted permission to record his statement. It referred to the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Surjit Singh, wherein, the Court had considered a case where dying declaration was recorded by the I.O. in which the doctor has certified at 4:30 P.M. that the patient was fit for making the statement. The dying declaration was recorded at 5:30 P.M. The Court found that Surjit Singh (PW-10), who had recorded the dying declaration had not stated that Dr. Sudhir Sharma had examined the deceased before giving the fitness certificate. It relied on paragraphs ‘12’, ‘13’ and ‘14’ of the judgment of the Court. It reads: “12. Now, we come to the dying declaration relied upon by the prosecution which is recorded by Surjit Singh (PW 10). He recorded the alleged dying declaration at 5.30 p.m. on 8-7-1999. A request was made by him to the doctor attached to GGS Medical College to certify whether the deceased was fit to make a statement. An endorsement, according to him, was made by Dr Sudhir Sharma at 4.30 p.m. recording that the patient was fit for making the statement. 13. In the examination-in-chief, Surjit Singh (PW 10) has not stated that Dr Sudhir Sharma examined the deceased before giving the fitness certificate. He has stated that Dr Sudhir Sharma remained present by his side when he recorded the statement of the deceased. What is most relevant is the admission given by Surjit Singh (PW 10) in Para 2 of his cross-examination, which reads thus: “2. It is correct that doctor remained beside Reeta Rani throughout when I recorded her statement. It is correct that I sought the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of Reeta Rani throughout her statement but he refused to give this certificate i.e. fitness certificate. …” (emphasis supplied) 14. Thus, even according to Surjit Singh (PW 10), the doctor, who gave certificate at 4.30 p.m., declined to give a certificate that when the statement of the deceased was being recorded, she was fit to give a statement. There is nothing brought on record to show that Dr Sudhir Sharma examined the deceased before giving certificate of fitness at 4.30 p.m. What is most crucial is that Dr Sudhir Sharma has not been examined as a prosecution witness. In view of what is admitted by Surjit Singh (PW 10) in Para 2 in his cross-examination, which we have quoted above, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution for not examining the said doctor. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the dying declaration allegedly recorded by Surjit Singh (PW 10) will have to be discarded. Then the other dying declaration recorded by an independent doctor, namely, Dr Manvir Gupta (PW 13), holds the field.”

Justice Prasad has recorded that in the present case, since the I.O. himself admitted that "the doctor had not granted him permission to record the statement of the victim, this Court cannot attach much evidentiary value to the fardbeyan of the victim as dying declaration. 22. This Court finds that there is a huge doubt over the condition of the victim at the time of recording of the fardbeyan in Sadar Hospital, Lakhisarai." 

He also recorded: "23. The Doctor had noticed as many as ten injuries on the various parts of the body of the victim. No chit of paper regarding the treatment of the victim in the Sadar Hospital, Lakhisarai or in the Patna Medical College Hospital has been produced by the prosecution. Had those papers been produced, the Court would have been in a position to appreciate from the medical papers whether deceased was in a position to speak. 24. Going through the kind of injuries suffered by the victim, we cannot believe that the victim would have been in a position to speak. We can see from the kind of recording of the fardbeyan that it is giving every detail of himself and that of the accused persons as also the narration of occurrence which could not have been possible. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Suresh Sahu (supra)." 

Supreme Court's judgement in paragraphs ‘41’ to ‘44’ reads:“41. The prosecution relies heavily on the disclosure of the names of the accused-appellants in the oral dying declaration of the deceased. However, having gone through the evidence of the medical jurist, Dr. Ajit Kumar Chaudhary (PW-5), we are unable to subscribe to the theory that the deceased would have been in a position to speak after receiving the injuries described .....42. It is impossible to believe that, having received such grave head/cranial injuries, the deceased would have been in a position to speak what to talk of making an oral dying declaration. 43. That apart, admittedly, the deceased was taken to the hospital at Mandar, at the first instance, from where he was referred to R.M.C.H., Ranchi. The treatment documents of the deceased from the Mandar Hospital could have provided vital information regarding his condition at the time of arrival at the hospital. However, the prosecution did not bring any such document on record, which further weakens the case of prosecution on the theory of oral dying declaration. 44. The evidence of Tapeshwari Kumari (PW-1) and Saroj Kumari (PW-2), being the sisters of the deceased, on the aspect of oral dying declaration is unworthy of credence for the reasons which we have assigned above.”

Justice Prasad observed:"25. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in appreciating the fardbeyan of the victim by taking the same as dying declaration. 26. We have further noticed that the I.O. (PW-5) has tated in paragraph ‘1’ that he had recorded the further statement of the informant (victim) and had recorded it by way of videography but the said videographic statement has not been produced before the learned Trial Court. The electronic evidence
of videography would have been a vital piece of evidence in this case and it would have demonstrated how the deceased had made statement during his hospitalization in the Sadar Hospital. Non- production of the video by the I.O. (PW-5) would prove fatal to the prosecution.' 

The High Court referred to paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tomaso Bruno (supra). The judgment reads:“28. The High Court held that even though the appellants alleged that the footage of CCTV is being concealed by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the accused did not invoke Section 233 CrPC and they did not make any application for production of CCTV camera footage. The High Court further observed that the accused were not able to discredit the testimony of PW 1, PW 12 and PW 13 qua there being no relevant material in the CCTV camera footage. Notwithstanding the fact that the burden lies upon the accused to establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the prosecution in possession of the best evidence, CCTV footage ought to have produced the same. In our considered view, it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced.”  

Justice Prasad observed: "27. We, therefore, find that in this case so far as the fardbeyan of the victim/deceased, which has been attached with the formal FIR is concerned, the same is not free from blemish and doubt for the reasons discussed hereinabove. 28. We have further noticed that in this case the said dying declaration has to be discarded in view of the provisions contained in Section 313 Cr.P.C. The dying declaration was not put before the accused-appellant during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C." 

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the High Court in the case of Munna Shukla and the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh. The High Court in paragraph ‘24’ of its decision in the case of Munna Shukla held:- “24. In the case of Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1978) 4 SCC 85 : AIR 1979 SC 190, it has been held by the Apex Court that the dying declaration, which is not recorded by a Magistrate has to be scrutinized closely but it is well settled that if the Court is satisfied on a close scrutiny of the dying declaration that it is truthful, it is open to the court to convict the accused on its basis without any independent corroboration.”

The Supreme Court in in paragraph ‘16’ of its decision in the case of Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh has held:-“16. The most unfortunate part is that the evidence of PW-11 about the dying declarations made by these two victims has not been put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC. Not only that what is stated in the evidence by PW-11 is not put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC., but even the fact that the dying declarations were made by Fatima and Amina to PW-11 was not put to the
accused.” 

Justice Prasad observed: "31. We have also noticed that in this case the fardbeyan of the informant talks of prior enmity whereas the statement of Sheetal Yadav (PW-2) talks of rangdaari as the reason for the occurrence. Defence has exhibited several documents and marked exhibits to show that the deceased was a veteran criminal. He was convicted in Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 716 of 2018. 32. We have further noticed that in this case the prosecution witness numbers PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW-2 has stated that his statement was not recorded by police. Presence of PW-2 and PW-3 is not stated in the fardbeyan of the deceased or in the fardbeyan of PW-3 which was recorded on 19.01.2019 at 13:00 Hrs. The occurrence took place outside the village and in this regard, the statement of PW-3 says that it happened in south-west Bahiyar to the village."