As part of Division Bench Justice S. B. Pd. Singh authored all judgments dated September 2

Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh delivered seven judgements on September 2, 2025.All the judgements dated September 2 by this bench were authored by Justice Singh. 

In Bibek Kumar Jaiswal @ Vivek Kumar Jaiswal vs. Shabnam Jaiswal @ Sabnam Jaiswal (2025), a case from Supaul, Justice Singh held that Family Court rightly dismissed the matrimonial case of the appellant seeking divorce. 

In Nilu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar (2025), a case from Hajipur, Justice Singh set  aside the judgement and decree by Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali. 

In Shashi Bhushan Poddar vs. Gyan Bharti @ Rekha Poddar & Anr. (2025), a case from Bhagalpur, Justice Singh upheld Family Court's judgement and decree which dismissed the matrimonial case of the appellant seeking divorce. 

In Arun Kumar vs. Sushmita Kumari (2025), a case from Begusarai, Justice Singh set aside judgment and decree by Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, which had dismissed the divorce case. 

In Md. Naushad Hussain vs. Shahida Khaton & Anr. (2025), a case from Darbhanga, Justice Singh concluded:"Considering the fact that Talaq has already been performed between the parties and in the entire evidence, the appellant-husband has not denied the aforesaid assertion of the respondent and the respondent herself does not want to continue matrimonial relationship with the appellant-husband, we are not inclined to interference with the impugned judgment. The Family Court has rightly dismissed the Matrimonial Case No. 209 of 2012 filed on behalf of the appellant husband."   

In Pramod Pasi vs. The State of Bihar through Secretary Excise and Prohibition Department Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), a case from Gopalganj, the Court recorded that the recovery of illicit liquor was only 7.8 litres which is a meager quantity. Justice Singh concluded:"Considering the small quantity of liquor, the concerned authority is hereby directed to collect fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousands) from the petitioner and release the motorcycle in his favour within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order, for which petitioner has no objection." He observed: "We are conscious of the fact that alleged recovery is meager quantity and the aforesaid order has been passed while invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons that unnecessarily petitioner shall not be subjected to various proceedings like Rule of 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with amended sub Rule 2 of Rule 12A in the year 2022 and 2023, Sections 58, 92 and 93 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for an issue of 7.8 litres of illicit liquor and such order is required to prevent the multiplicity of proceeding in the interest of justice."

In Yogendra Yadav vs, The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar Prohibition and Excise Department, Bihar & Ors. (2025), a case from Gaya, Justice Singh took note of the fact that the recovery of illicit liquor was only 1 litre which is a meager quantity. He observed: "Considering the small quantity of liquor, the concerned authority is hereby directed to collect fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Five Thousands) from the petitioner and release the motorcycle in his favour within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order, for which petitioner has no objection." He added: We are conscious of the fact that alleged recovery is meager quantity and the aforesaid order has been passed while invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons that unnecessarily petitioner shall not be subjected to various proceedings like Rule of 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with amended sub Rule 2 of Rule 12A in the year 2022 and 2023, Sections 58, 92 and 93 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for an issue of 1 litre of illicit liquor and such order is required to prevent the multiplicity of proceeding in the interest of justice."

Notably, a 17-page long judgement dated September 1, 2025 by the same Division Bench had set aside the judgment and decree dated February 25, 2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj. This judgement too was authored by Justice Singh.  

 

Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra denies bail for cyber offences at Digital Online Examination Center, Purnia under Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024

In Dharmveer Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's bench of Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra passed an order dated April 15, 2025 denying bail to the residents of Nalanda in connection with Purnea Cyber P.S. case of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 65, 66(C), 66(D) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. Digital Online Examination Center at Hansda Road, Gulabbag, Purnia. The order of Justice Mishra has been challenged in the Supreme Court passed an order dated July 2025 issuing notice to the respondents returnable within three weeks in  Dharmveer Kumar vs. The State of Bihar  & Anr. (2025). 

The police officials reached at Digital Online Examination Center at Hansda Road, Gulabbag, Purnia and during verification caught 12 fake candidates including Dharmveer Kumar and Deepu Kumar, a resident of Nalanda, the petitioners were found using forged admit cards, Aadhaar cards and other documents and were arrested. On query, they confessed of appearing in the examination in place of actual students in exchange of money. They also disclosed that the original students were present in a nearby flat where their e-admit cards were being verified for ‘bio-metric In-Out’ access. Later on, the police raided the said flat and recovered e-devices and other incriminating materials. It was revealed that before the entry of the fake candidates, the owner of the lab Vivek Kumar, his partner Roshan Kumar S/o Suryadeo Mandal, Rahul Raj and other accomplices used to prepare the documents at the Purnia Digital Center. Subsequently, seven Purnia Digital staff members who are alleged to have helped in organizing the cheating process, were also arrested. The police also arrested two persons, namely Roshan Kumar s/o Ajay Singh and Kunal Kumar who were fleeing from the Center, in front of the Purnia Digital Examination Center on the road. From the place of location, connecting network wire and other technical items were recovered. From the flat of Suresh Chandra Saha, 14 original examinees, were also arrested and, on search, various documents including fake admit cards, Aadhaar cards, original IDs of the students etc. were recovered. From outside the flat, the police also seized Tata Harrier car with a cheque of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 4,20,400/- in cash. The police also recovered several incriminating articles from the Hotel Shine. Two motorcycles and one scooter were also seized.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners submitted that there is a non-compliance of Section 103 of the  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita B.N.S.S., 2023 (Section 100 from Cr.PC) which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. The petitioners had no criminal antecedent and were languishing in judicial custody since November 14, .2024. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. 

Section 103 in BNSS reads: "103. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search. (1)Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein. 

(2)If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of section 44.

(3)Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency.

 

(4)Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

 

(5)The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.

 

(6)The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.

 

(7)When any person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.

 

(8)Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 222 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023."

Justice Mishra observed: "In the opinion of this Court, public examinations play a crucial role in shaping the educational and professional futures of individuals. The credibility and fairness of these examinations are fundamental to ensure equal opportunities for all candidates. In this case, it is alleged that the petitioners along with the other co-accused persons in connivance with criminal conspiracy and in organized way committed the offence of cheating, cheating by impersonation, forgery of valuable
security and fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine any document or electronic record which they know or have reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record. They have also committed an offence under the I.T. Act as well as the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 recently passed by the Parliament. Such type of offence undermines the principles of meritocracy, equal
opportunities, integrity of system and ultimately impacting the credibility of qualifications and the over all social fabric."

He concluded:"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the entire records of this case as also taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage". He made it clear that if the trial is not concluded within the period of six months, the petitioners will be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the court below which will be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order."