Supreme Court sets aside Justice Purnendu Singh's indefensible order ridden with glaring infirmities, requests High Court's roster bench to decide the case afresh, within 1 month

In Anjani Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 3-page long order dated April 202, 026, wherein, it condoned the delay, granted leave and allowed the appeal after taking note of the order dated October 9, 2025 passed by Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court. It concluded: "4. The impugned order speaks for itself. The infirmities are so obvious and glaring that the same neither warrants detailed exposition nor is there any necessity to issue notice to the respondents. 5. The impugned order being indefensible, is set aside. We request the roster Bench of the High Court to decide Criminal Miscellaneous No.60503 of 2024 afresh upon granting due opportunity of hearing to the parties and in accordance with law, as early as possible and, subject to its convenience, within a month from date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. We keep all contentions on merits open for being urged by the parties before the roster Bench."

In the impugned 2-page long order dated October 10, 2025 in Anjani Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Singh had observed:"2. The present quashing application has been notified on “Urgent Mentioning” made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. In spite of repeated calls, no one has appeared on behalf of the parties. 4. I proceed to pass order on merit on the basis of materials available on the record. 5. The present quashing application has been filed for for following issues:-'For setting aside/quashing of cognizance order dated 18.12.2023 passed in complaint case No. (C)1252/2023 by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate XIII, Saran whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 420/466/471 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code for complaint filed for alleged offence under Section 194, 420, 466, 468, 469, 471, 504 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceeding.' 6.The charge-sheet was submitted on 29.09.2020 and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate XIII, Saran took cognizance under Section 420, 466, 471 and 120B of the IPC having found sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. 7. This Court finds that the instant case is one of the cases in which the parties may exercise to settle their dispute amicably and the learned District Court may also give opportunity to them, so that they can settle their dispute outside the Court. 8. The present quashing application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty."

Supreme Court detected obvious and glaring infirmities in Justice Singh's order and requested the roster bench to hear the case afresh. 

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh

In Pravin Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated February 18, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "....we are of the considered view that prima facie the complaint seems to be with a flavour of civil dispute. That apart, investigation, if any, is to be done by the authorities, which would mainly revolve around the documentary evidence. As such, appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Appellant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Investigating Officer (IO) may deem fit to impose and also on the condition that appellant would appear before the jurisdictional court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason." 

With this it reversed the 5-page long order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of Patna High Court who had concluded: "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the seriousness of allegation against the petitioners. It is not fit case for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below concerned within ten weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners in accordance with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order." 

The appellant was arraigned as an accused in FIR of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The gist of the prosecution case was that appellant was a builder and Director of a company called City Green Infrastructure and had put up construction of apartments. One of the flats which was agreed to be sold to one of its customers, with whom the project proponent had a dispute, was not delivered the possession of the flat as agreed under the agreement and the amount paid as consideration was also not refunded; as such the issue regarding the same was pending before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority of Bihar established  under section 20 (1) of  the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. In the meanwhile, the purchaser initiated the criminal prosecution, which resulted in the FIR being registered against the appellant. 

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner no.2 (Arvind Sharma) Infrastructure along with his two partners namely Pravin Kumar (petitioner no.1) and Saurabh Kumar was developing an apartment on the land measuring 34 katha 12 dhur of Ishri Lal Yadav and Mishri Lal Yadav situated in front of Malti Kunj Apartment. It was also alleged that in the said apartment, the informant purchased flat no. 201 with parking in the ‘B’ Block in the year 2016 for total consideration of Rs. 26 lakhs, on February 23, 2018, a registered agreement was executed by the builder. On May 16, 2019, the informant paid 90% of the amount through bank and further on December 10, 2020, the informant paid Rs. 1,18,000/- as GST amount. On June 24, 2022, Rs. 1,36,800/- was paid as GST amount i.e. in total Rs. 2,54,800/- has been paid as GST. It is further alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,36,800/- was wrongly demanded by the builder which was more than the actual amount of the GST. As per the agreement, the ownership was to be transferred till September 30 2020 but till date neither the registration nor the work of the apartment has been completed and due to these acts, the informant was facing financial and mental hardship and alleged that the breach of trust was committed against him by the manager and his two partners. 

The appellant had approached the Supreme  Court for anticipatory bail because Justice Singh of the High Court did not grant him relief. 

Supreme Court reverses Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh's pre-arrest bail rejection order

In Md. Faizi Ahmad vs. 1 . The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court passed a 3-page long order dated October 3, 2025, wherein, it condoned the delay and issued notice. The order  reads: ''By way of an ad interim order, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail...In the meantime, the petitioner will file additional documents placing of record the details of antecedents.'' The case arose out of impugned order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court dated April 30, 2025

In Md. Faizi Ahmad vs. 1 . The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justice Singh had passed a 2-page long order dated April 30, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''Considering the nature of accusation , criminal antecedents and gravity of offence, prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is rejected.'' The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 420, 406, 120 ( B ), 323 , 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal code. 

According to the  prosecution case, pursuant to agreement made between the parties for sale of land, it was alleged that Rs. 18 lacs 21 thousand was given to petitioner in cash and through bank in the name of accused persons and thereafter petitioner refused to execute the sale deed or to return the alleged amount. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. It was also submitted that complainant and accused persons were distant relatives and the entire complaint case was false and concocted. The petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged incident and there was no specific allegation against him. The dispute was purely civil in nature. 

The counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had received Rs. 18 lacs 21 thousand through cash and in bank account and petitioner had got seven criminal antecedents. The case arose out of a P.S. case of 2021 from a Nawadah complaint case.