In Manju Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih passed a 2-page long order dated September 22, 2026, which reads:"1. The report sought for by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2026 has not been sent by the Registrar General, High Court of Patna. 2. Let the High Court of Patna be joined as a party-respondent through its Registrar General. Memo of parties be amended accordingly. 3. A Show Cause Notice be issued to the Registrar General, High Court of Patna, as to why the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. 4. The reply to the Show Cause Notice shall be filed on an affidavit by the Registrar General himself. 5. It is made clear that if the Registrar General fails to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, proceedings for committing contempt of court shall be initiated against the Registrar General, Patna High Court. 6. List the matter on 26.10.2026."
Supreme Court's order dated May 15, 2026 reads:"The order dated 31.01.2026 recorded in the Court of A.C.J.M.-8, Motihari District, Bihar records the following: 'As per the direction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, Physical verification has been conducted. Upon Physical verification, the present record could not be found despite due and diligent search. Accordingly, the same is disposed of as untraced. However, if the said record is traced in future, the proceeding shall commence immediately in accordance with law. Let necessary entries be made in the relevant register.' 2. It is strange that a Judicial Officer has very conveniently recorded in the order that the record could not be found, therefore, the case is disposed of as untraced. 3. Let the Registrar, High Court of Patna, initiate enquiry as to how the court record is misplaced or untraced. 4. The responsibility be fixed, action taken and information be sent to this court before the next date of hearing. 5. List the matter on 22.09.2026."
The order of the Supreme Court pertains to the order dated January 31, 2026 by ACJM, Motihari, which was required to be inquired into by the Registrar of Patna High Court. The million dollar question is: If the judicial officer of any court in the country is informed that a record of court is "untraced", what does judicial discipline obligate him to do. Is any judge in any case permitted to pass an order saying "disposed of as untraced"?
In its 2-page long order dated December 1, 2025, the Supreme Court had directed that "the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR No. 306/2024, registered with Police Station-Pakridayal...." By subsequent orders of the Court the interim order was extended.
The order dated September 22, 2026 added:"7. The Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court shall inform the Registrar General, Patna High Court, about this order and copy of entire record of proceedings be served to the Registrar General, Patna High Court. 8. The interim order granted earlier on 01.12.2025 shall continue till the next date of hearing and the petitioner(s) shall join the investigation by appearing before the concerned SHO between 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM on 05.10.2026. 9. The respondent-State of Bihar shall file a supplementary counter-affidavit before the next date of hearing."
The petitioner no. 2 is Baiju Sahani, the husband of Manju Devi and the respondent no. 2 is Registrar General, Patna High Court.
Notably, Rupesh Deo, the current Registrar General, Patna High Court is on the post since August 3, 2026. The current Chairman, Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Patna, P. K. Malik was the Registrar General from February 5, 2024 till April 2026. The current Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly, S.G. Mishra served as the Registrar General of the from April 20, 2026 till July 2026.
Earlier, in Manju Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court had passed a 2-page long order dated October 16, 2025, wherein, he had concluded:"5. Learned APP, Mr. Bharat Bhushan and learned counsel for the informant have jointly taken this Court to the injury report which are the part of the case diary to show that the injuries on the injured persons namely Akhilesh Sahni and Naresh Sahni have been found to be grievous in nature. 6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts as also that the injuries have been found to be grievous in nature, in that background, no relief can be extended. 7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected." The petitioner no. 2 is Baiju Sahani, the husband of Manju Devi. The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in connection with Pakarideyal P.S. Case No. 306 of 2024 instituted under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 76, 303(2) of B.N.S., 2023 lodged on December 3, 2024 by the informant, Rekha Devi. As per the prosecution story, the informant’s cousin father-in-law was assaulted by Baiju Sahani and Arvind Kumar with iron rod beside Manju Devi assaulted with ‘Kudal’. As he fell down, the husband came to rescue, the allegation is that Baiju Sahani and Babita Devi gave iron rod blow causing fracture on the hand. Further allegation is of snatching of gold chain. They were referred to Muzaffarpur for better treatment. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there is a case and counter case, land dispute has led to the filing of the FIR No. 306/24 dated December 3, 2024, the petitioners did not have any criminal antecedent. Unlike the High Court, the Supreme Court granted protection to the petitioners.
