Supreme Court reverses order by Justice Rajiv Roy who had declined extension of bail for non-disclosure of criminal antecedant at the outset

In Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed an order dated May 21, 2026, wherein, it condoned the delay. The order noted:"....it is seen that first modification application was filed to indicate that he has criminal antecedents. 2 . Thereafter another application was filed for extension of period to furnish the bail bonds in the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36600 of 2025. The High Court in first application only took the fact on record but not granted extension, however, the subsequent application was rejected." Supreme Court concluded: "In our view, after grant of the bail, the High Court may have granted extension after taking the fact of antecedents on record. 3. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this special leave petition with a direction that in furtherance to the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail, the bail bonds be furnished now within two weeks from today." 

Prior to this, in Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2026) Criminal  Miscellaneous  No. 24937 of 2026, Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order dated April 10, 2026. The order reads:"2 . The petitioner was granted relief on 16.09.2025. However, he could not surrender as in the petition it was recorded that he has no criminal antecedent whereas the petitioner was having criminal antecedent. In that background, the earlier modification petition (Cr. Misc. No. 954 of 2026) was rejected on 30.01.2026. 3. Once again, a fresh modification petition has been filed with following prayer:“for extension of time in the order dated 16.09.2025 vide Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025.” 4. It is again rejected in view of the earlier rejection dated 30.01.2026 with a cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee."

Justice Roy's earlier order dated January 30, 2026 reads: "2. The present application has been preferred for
modification in Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025 vide an order dated 16.09.2025, the order contains the statement of having no criminal antecedent in paragraph nos. 5 and 7 which is a factual error committed due to our hearing negligence. 3. On 16.09.2025, the Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025 (Ritesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar) was allowed and grounds amongst other was that main allegation is against Saurabh, the petitioner has been shown to be friend and he do not have criminal antecedent. 4. By filing the modification petition, the petitioner now wants correction in paragraph 5 and 7 of the said order and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has criminal antecedent. 5. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh submits that paragraph 3 of the main petition shows that the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, as recorded, no relief can be granted. 7. The Cr. Misc. No. 954 of 2026 is dismissed." 

Earlier, in Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2025) Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.36600 of 2025, Patna High Court's Justice Rajiv Roy passed a 3-page long order dated September 16, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"7. The allegation is there, it is mainly against Saurabh, the petitioner has been shown to be the friend, the girl has not stated anything about the sexual assault on her, he is only twenty years of age having no criminal antecedent, FIR is there and he shall be facing the music, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions. 8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge VII-cum-Spl. Court (POCSO), Purnia in connection with Raghuvansh Nagar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in connection with a Raghuvansh Nagar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 for the offence under sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on March 13, 2025 by the informant, Raj Kishore Kumar Dinkar. Earlier, by his order dated June 5, 2025, Justice Partha Sarthy had called for legible photocopy of the case diary and statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS in connection with Raghuvansh Nagar P.S Case no.19 of 2025 from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Court  (POCSO), Purnea.

As per the prosecution story, the informant had alleged that while his minor daughter was going to coaching center, the named accused persons including the petitioner took her away for marriage purposes. This led to the FIR. As the story unfolds, the victim girl returned and supported the allegation made in the FIR. The petitioner's senior counsel submitted that allegation was that one Saurabh Kumar wanted to marry the girl and only to implicate, his friends were named. The petition was a student having no criminal antecedent and is only twenty years of age. Asha Kumari, the APP had opposed the prayer submitting that the petitioner was also named by the informant as also the girl upon return.

Supreme Court reverses Justice Anil Kumar Sinha's order denying anticipatory bail

In Bablu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol  and Augustine George Masih passed a 3-page long order dated May 8, 2026, wherein, it reversed the 2-page long order dated March 19, 2026 passed by Justice Anil Kumar Sinha of Patna High Court. The petitioner challenged the order by the High Court. The Supreme Court's order concluded: "8. In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.5804036250020 of 2025 of Korma Police Station, Sheikhpura District, Bihar, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. However, in the attending facts, one of the conditions shall necessarily be that if the petitioner possesses a passport, the same shall be deposited before the Competent Authority/Court, till the conclusion of the Trial or directed otherwise. The order recorded: "10. Needless to add, till the investigation is not complete in all respects, the petitioner(s) would fully cooperate, and if the challan/charge sheet is filed...."

The application, for grant of anticipatory bail, had arisen out of a Korma Police Station Case of 2025, disclosing offences under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. As per the prosecution case, on February 15, 2025 at about 7:00 PM, the informant’s 17-year-old daughter, Savita Kumari, went to the fields and was allegedly abducted by several accused persons who lured her with the intention of marriage. Despite efforts, she could not be traced and her mobile phone was found switched off. The informant fears that the accused may cause harm to his daughter. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and he had falsely been implicated in the case due to ulterior motives. He submitted that petitioner had no connection with the alleged occurrence and he was merely the brother of co-accused Deepak Kumar. The petitioner asserted that the informant’s daughter had voluntarily left her home owing to a consensual relationship with the co-accused Deepak Kumar. It was also submitted that the FIR disclosed only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner without any specific role attributed to him. The petitioner had denied having any knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the co-accused and the informant’s daughter. He submitted that the case was lodged maliciously with the intent to harass and exert pressure upon the petitioner. 

Justice Sinha had concluded; "Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that minor girl has been kidnapped, there is allegation against the petitioner that he along with Deepak Kumar and others kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and the girl has not yet been recovered, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. This application is, accordingly, rejected."