Patna High Court to condole death of Raghib Ahsan, a senior advocate, Advocate Dr. Indira Lakshmi & other five advocates

There will be a Full Court Reference on March 26, 2026, in the Centenary Hall of Patna High Court to condole the sad demise of Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate along with Dr. Indira Lakshmi, Randhir Kumar Singh, Ras Bihari Thakur, Gajendra Prasad Yadav, Braj Nandan Singh, and Ravineshwar Dayal @ Ravi, Advocates of the Court. 

On March  18, 2026, in one of his last appearances, Raghib Ahsan argued in Sk. Md. Nasim @ Md. Nasim & Ors. vs Sk. Saghir Alam (2026) before Justice Khatim Reza of the High Court. He was assisted by Wasi Akhtar counsel for the appellants. This Second Appeal was filed by the defendant/appellants against the judgment and decree of affirmance. Title Suit No. 196 of 1989/156 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration of his right, title and possession over the suit land and the defendants had got no concern on the suit land and also for recovery of possession if the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants during the pendency of the suit. The suit was decreed by the Munsif-1, Gopalganj by the judgment and decree dated August 31, 2006, against which, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 167 of 2006, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge-VIII, Gopalganj by its judgment and decree dated September 27, 2016, which was under challenged in the instant Second Appeal.

Both the courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, came to a definite conclusion that on the basis of registered gift deed dated May 19, 1979, the right, title and possession of the plaintiff was proved by the valid documents, such as registered deed of gift, Mutation order as well as rent receipts. It appeared from the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which was final court of facts, the First Appellate Court after considering each and every issued framed by the trial court and came to a separate and independent finding. The First Appellate Court clearly observed that from Paragraph no. 31 of the written statement, it appeared that they clearly stated that their father Abdul Rahman wanted to divide his property in between his two sons i.e. the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, but on going through documentary evidence as available on records, it was  found that said Abhul Rahman executed deed of gift in respect to the suit land in favour of the plaintiff voluntarily which is evident from other documentary evidence. Notably, certified copy of Ekrarnama dated September 4, 1984 executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in favour of Sk. Saghir Alam (plaintiff). Mutation Case No. 798 of 1985-86 filed between Sk. Saghir Alam (plaintiff) Vs. Sk. Abdul Rahman and certified copy of Mutation Order passed in the aforesaid mutation case in favour of the plaintiff have also clarified that the registered deed of gift dated May 19, 1979 was correct, legal and valid documents and the same was also supported by the reports of the Fingerprint Expert. The First Appellate Court after perusing the oral and documentary evidence held that the deed of cancellation dated August 30, 1979 was forged and fabricated. The trial court rightly and correctly decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. 

On scrutinising the oral as well as documentary evidence, it was also held that the alleged cancellation deed dated August 30, 1979 were all forged, fabricated and void documents. The suit was not barred by law of limitation and the suit as framed and filed by the plaintiff against the defendants/appellants was maintainable. The First Appellate Court found no infirmities in the judgment of the the trial court. So far as the point that the First Appellate Court failed to formulate points of determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') was concerned, it was apparent from the judgment of the First Appellate Court that it had considered all the issues framed by the trial court independently and cited reasons for recording decision. There was no doubt that it was desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, but if it was possible to make out from the judgment that there was substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice had not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient. Where the appellate court considered the entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail, came to any conclusion that its findings were supported by reasons even though the point was not framed by the appellate court, there was substantial compliance with the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and the judgment was not in any manner vitiated by the absence of a point of determination. The aforesaid view was taken by the Supreme Court in G. Amalorpavam & Ors. Vs. R.C. Diocese.

In the case, the appellate court had considered all the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the parties and considered the issues as framed by the learned trial court separately and given its findings independently. The father of the plaintiff, namely, Abdul Rahman had executed deed of gift in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff followed by delivery of possession and the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records through due process of law. The said registered deed of gift was challenged by the defendants in any competent Civil Court. 

The Registrar or Sub-Registrar had no jurisdiction to cancel the registered Gift Deed or Sale Deed. Moreover, the First Appellate Court held that the cancellation deed dated August 30, 1979, A sale deed dated October 13, 1984 executed by Md. Muslim in favour of Sk. Rahman; sale deed dated October 12, 1984 executed by Sk. Rahman in favour of Sk. Md. Yasin and deed of gift dated October 12, 1984 executed by Abdul Rahman in favour of Sk. Md. Nasim were forged fabricated and void documents on the basis of material oral as well as documentary evidences.

Justice Reza concluded: "7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record, it is quite apparent that the judgment and decree of the courts below are covered by the findings of facts and no question of law much less substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the instant Second Appeal.8. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of Admission under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC. 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

As to Dr. Indira Lakshmi (65), the woman lawyer practicing at the High Court and and Civil Court, her partially-burnt body was found at her residence in Rajendra Nagar locality under Kadam Kuan police station area of Patna, Bihar on February 11, 2026. She was found dead under mysterious circumstances at her residence. Her body was recovered from the two-storey house located on Rajendra Nagar Road No. 2. The lady advocate used to live alone in the house as her husband, Amarendra Kumar, resides in Ranchi, Jharkhand, while her daughter lives in Bengaluru. The tenants residing in the building noticed the partially burnt body inside the house on the morning of February 11. They informed the police. It is not clear as to whether the death was accidental or the result of a planned crime. The body was sent to Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) for post-mortem examination, which was conducted in the presence of family members. The lawyers’ associationdemanded a thorough probe into this case. The caretaker reported that Lakshmi was sitting in the verandah until midnight. She had returned to Patna on February 1 after visiting her husband in Ranchi. She had not been going to court after that. It is not clear as to why had she stopped going to the court. 

 

Justice Abhay S. Oka to act as Ombudsman of Bihar Cricket Association, after submission of Justice L. Nageswara Rao's recommendations

In Bihar Cricket Association vs. Bihar Cricket Association & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala nd K.V. Viswanathan passed a 3-page order dated March 20, 2026 whereby, it appointed Justice Abhay S. Oka, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India to act as the Ombudsman of the Bihar Cricket Association.  

By its order dated August 12, 2025, the Court had appointed Justice L. Nageswara Rao, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Ombudsman of the Bihar Cricket Association. The appointment was made to work out the modalities for the smooth functioning of the Association. As Ombudsman, Justice Rao forwarded his exhaustive report alongwith a separate note.The Court took the Report on record. Justice Rao requested that he may now be relieved from the assignment. The Court expressed gratitude towards him. 

Now Justice Oka is to take charge as the Ombudsman. The fees of the Ombudsman, along with other modalities, shall be fixed in consultation with the parties. The Court's order reads: "11. We direct the Bihar Cricket Association to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) to Mr. Viduspat Singhania, Managing Partner of Krida Legal and his Associates, who assisted the learned Ombudsman in the enquiry and preparation of the report. 12. Since the report is now on record, the Registry shall also provide a digital copy of the report prepared by the learned Ombudsman to all the parties in the present litigation. 13. We shall look into all other recommendations made by the Former Ombudsman on the next date of hearing."

Supreme Court stays operation of Justice Sandeep Kumar's order, and proceedings pursuant to cognizance order by S.D.J.M., Buxar

In Kamla Devi @ Kamla Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 2-page long order dated March 20, 2026, wherein it stayed the operation of the order dated January 13, 2026 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court. Supreme Court's order reads: "....further proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 1006/2009, including proceedings pursuant to the cognizance order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Buxar, shall remain stayed." 

Justice Kumar has passed the order upon hearing the application filed for quashing the order dated Juky 27, 2010 passed by the S.D.J.M., Buxar by which, cognizance was taken under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court in the year 2016 i.e., after more than six years, after an inordinate delay. 

Justice Kumar observed that this application was dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds at the stage of discharge. He wrote: "5. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the Court below in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577. 6. Interim protection granted to the petitioners by order dated 06.09.2023 is hereby vacated. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Buxar through FAX for its compliance forthwith."

Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey sets aside conviction under NDPS Act by Katihar trial court

In Sanjeev Dev Verma & Anr. vs. State of Bihar 2026 (1) PLJR 493, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 34-page long judgment dated December 16, 2025 upon hearing an appeal against the judgment dated dated February 23, 2023 and order of sentence dated February 27, 2023 by Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum Successor of Court of A.S.J.-IV, Kathihar in a N.D.P.S. Case. The trial court had convicted the the appellants namely Sanjeev Dev Verma, Tapas Dev Verma and Sanjeet Dev Verma for the offences under Sections 20(b)(C) read with Section 25/29 of the N.D.P.S Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years for the offence under Section 20(b)(C) read with Section 25/29 of the N.D.P.S Act and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The Division Bench concluded:"....we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved it’s case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, we set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants and acquit them of the charges giving them benefit of doubt." Earlier, seven persons were arrested but four accused were not convicted under the NDPS Act by the trial court.

The High Court found serious lapses in how the police handled seizure, sampling and legal formalities. The case arises from an alleged seizure of ganja on January 30, 2018 in Katihar, Bihar. Officers of the Special Task Force, Patna, allegedly passed secret information to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Katihar Town (Sahayak) Police Station about a truck carrying cannabis from Tripura to Bihar, escorted by a Bolero vehicle.As per the written report, the SHO formed two raiding teams. Around 05:00 a.m., a Bolero followed by a truck was intercepted near Kolasi Petrol Pump. Seven persons were apprehended from both vehicles. The police claimed that, after serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and in the presence of independent witnesses, they searched the truck and recovered 110 packets of ganja (weighing 644.5 kg) from a hidden chamber behind the driver’s seat. Mobile phones and cash were allegedly recovered from the occupants. The contraband was said to have been weighed, samples drawn, and seizure lists prepared and signed by independent witnesses and accused persons. All seven persons were arrested on the spot.

On this basis, Katihar Town (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2018 was registered on January 30, 2018 under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. After investigation, charge-sheet No. 189 of 2018 dated July 27, 2018 was submitted under the same sections. Cognizance was taken on August 3, 2018 against seven accused, including the appellants. The case was tried as NDPS Case No. 03 of 2018 in the trial court. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and produced various documents, including the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

The Division Bench heard the appeals agaisnt the judgement by the trial court. The appellants’ counsel argued that the entire prosecution was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. There was violation of Section 42 (information and reporting to superior officers), non-compliance of Sections 50, 52, 52A and 57, failure to prove seizure through independent witnesses, lack of evidence on sampling and safe custody, and delay and irregularity in sending samples to FSL. It observed that the driver, khalasi and a passenger were convicted merely because ganja was allegedly found in a concealed box in the truck, without proper proof that they knowingly possessed or transported it. The High Court re-examined the trial record and evidence of all 13 prosecution witnesses. 

The Court examined how sampling and custody of the seized material were handled. The FIR stated that small quantities were taken from packets P1, P2, P3 and P4, mixed, and a sample prepared at the spot. In his examination-in-chief, the informant (PW-2, the SHO) had not mentioned any sampling at the place of occurrence. He only stated that seizure lists were prepared, the ganja was kept in sacks, sealed, and brought to the police station for keeping in the malkhana. There was no disclosure about where or how any sample was kept. PW‑1 and PW‑3, did not support the FIR version that sampling was done at the spot. PW‑13 stated that sealing was done at the police station. He did not remember in how many packets it was sealed. None of the witnesses explained when, where and in whose presence samples were drawn.

The Court recorded that an application was made by the Investigating Officer (PW‑6) for sending samples to the FSL at Patna and to a laboratory at Kolkata, and permission was granted on the same day. But  the FSL report from Patna recorded that the sample was received there only on July 23, 2018, based on memo no. 795 of 2018 dated April 30, 2018—almost three months after the memo date. There was no evidence on where and in what condition the samples remained during this period. The Court observed: “the very sampling of the seized material becomes doubtful”. 

The Division Bench examined compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which requires preparation of an inventory, drawing of representative samples, and certification by a Magistrate. Citing the provision at length, the Court emphasised that the officer must apply to a Magistrate for certifying the correctness of the inventory, taking photographs in the Magistrate’s presence, and allowing representative samples to be drawn and certified. On perusal of the trial court record, the High Court found no application to any Magistrate for certification, no Magistrate’s certificate, and no photographs. There was also no material to show that samples were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate. The trial court’s own judgment recorded that the seized narcotics “may be destroyed if the same has not yet been done”, indicating that mandatory pre-disposal certification did not happen. The Court held that this amounted to “complete violation of Section 52A”. It drew adverse inference against the prosecution regarding the alleged seizure of such a huge consignment. 

The two independent seizure witnesses, PW‑10 and PW‑11, did not support the prosecution. PW‑10 said that while he was sitting at a tea stall, 2–3 officers asked him to sign some papers. They told him it was a formality, and that he had not seen any article being seized. PW‑11 stated he had not seen any truck being seized or any material recovered and could not identify the accused. Both were declared hostile. The independent witnesses disowned the seizure, and police witnesses gave inconsistent details about fog, the presence of a following vehicle, and other circumstances. The Court inferred that the prosecution version lacks reliability.

The Investigating Officer (PW‑6) admitted in cross-examination that he submitted charge-sheet without receiving the FSL report. He stated that charge-sheet was filed in hurry to ensure that the accused could not get bail. The FSL report from Patna was dated September 27, 2019 but was produced before the trial court only on November 24, 2021, at the fag end of the trial. Defence counsel had objected to its exhibition, yet the trial court overruled the objection and marked it as Exhibit-6. 

The High Court noticed another inconsistency. The trial court records showed that objection had been raised, but in paragraph 22 of its judgment incorrectly stated that no party objected to marking the FSL report under Section 293 CrPC. It also recorded that the FSL report from Kolkata was never brought on record for inexplicable reason.

The Bench proved whether Section 42, which governs how secret information is recorded and conveyed to superior officers, was followed. Although the informant claimed to have made a station diary entry about the secret information and to have informed his superior, no such record was produced. he Court held that a mere general diary entry does not automatically amount to compliance with Section 42(1) and 42(2). The High Court drew on Supreme Court’s decision in Mahabir Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 SCC 148, wherein, it observed that station diary entries cannot be used as substantive evidence against an accused. It relied on Court's decision in Boota Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2021) 19 SCC 606, and the Constitution Bench's decision in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539, wherein, the Court reaffirmed that total non-compliance with Section 42 is not permissible, and only delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation can be accepted. It referred the decision in Darshan Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 14 SCC 358, to stress that the procedure under Section 42 NDPS Act was distinct from and cannot be substituted by the general Criminal Procedure Code process of FIR registration and forwarding. Nothing was shown to prove written recording of information and its forwarding to superior officers in the manner required by Section 42. It implied that that statutory compliance was lacking.

The trial court had acquitted the four persons travelling in the Bolero, holding that the prosecution failed to connect them with transport of ganja or any conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act. But on the same evidence, it convicted the three appellants only because they were found travelling in the truck from which contraband was allegedly recovered and could not explain how ganja came to be concealed there.

The High Court pointed out that the prosecution case itself was that the truck carrying ganja was being escorted by a Bolero vehicle, and witnesses had consistently said that four persons were apprehended from the Bolero and forwarded to jail. If, on this basis, Bolero occupants were given benefit of doubt, it was inconsistent to deny similar benefit to the truck occupants when the basic legal requirements of seizure, sampling and statutory compliance were not met.

Taking factors like lack of reliable evidence on sampling, absence of malkhana records, violation of Section 52A, non-compliance with Section 42, hostile independent witnesses, late and irregular production of FSL report, and differential treatment of co-accused into account, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It set aside the judgment of conviction.

This judgment is relevant for anyone facing charges under the NDPS Act, especially drivers, helpers and labourers picked up with vehicles allegedly carrying contraband. The High Court makes it clear that courts will not uphold harsh NDPS punishments if the police skip mandatory legal steps.

The decision underlines that secret information must be recorded and reported properly under Section 42, seizure and sampling must follow Section 52A, and the chain of custody must be clear. Independent witnesses, malkhana records and timely FSL reports matter. Where these elements are missing or doubtful, courts can give the accused the benefit of doubt, even in cases involving large quantities of alleged drugs.

This judgement tells the defence lawyers and accused persons to keenly question how police conducted search, seizure, sampling and storage, and not to accept police narratives at face value when legal safeguards are ignored.

Supreme Court grants pre-arrest bail to Gyanti Devi from Jahanabad

In Janti Devi @ Buchiya Devi @Gyanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2026),  Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi granted pre-arrest bail to the appellant by its 6-page long order dated March 19, 2026. The appellant was a woman aged 42-43 years, who had filed the appeal seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR dated March 15, 2025 registered at Police Station Jahanabad Thana, Jahanabad, Bihar under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 

The counsel for the appellant submitted that there are no allegations against her. Her entire family was involved in the case. Two minor sons were already granted bail being juvenile. The husband of the appellant is still in custody.

The Court observed:"5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that entire family had been involved in the case, the appellant is a woman aged 42-43 and her husband is already in custody, in our opinion, she deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail."

Supreme Court reverses order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh in a cyber crime case, grants pre-arrest bail

In Abhishek Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 2-page long order dated March 19, 2026 wherein it reversed the 2-page long order dated September 9, 2025 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh. Justice Singh had concluded:"Considering the seriousness and nature of accusation , recovery of huge incriminating articles and other circumstances of the case , prayer for pre-arrest bail of thepetitioner is hereby rejected." 

The Petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 111 (2), 319 (2), 318 (4), read with 3 (5) of BNS and and 66 (c) , 66 (d) of Information Technology Act. High Court's order records: "As per the prosecution case , on a secret
information, informant along with others conducted a raid was conducted in the house of this petitioner where huge incriminating articles were recovered and one co-accused Vikash Kumar was apprehended who disclosed the names of other accused persons including this petitioner and also confessed their involvement in the cyber crime."

Supreme Court's order reads:"In the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 270 of 2025, registered at P.S. Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Investigating/Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as imposed and found to be just, fair and reasonable. 8. The petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer on 25.03.2026 at 10:00 a.m. and on all such dates as he may be required. 9. Needless to add, the petitioner would maintain good conduct and not attempt to influence any of the witnesses, in any manner, till the completion of the trial."

Supreme Court grants pre-arrest bail to Sardar Iqbal Singh in a cheating case with regard to money dispute

In Sardar Iqbal Singh @ Iqbal Singh Bagga @ Iqbal Singh vs.The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 4-page long order dated March 20, 2026 allowing the appeal for pre-arrest bail.. The prayer made in the appeal was for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant in connection with FIR No.308/2024 dated June 26, 2024 registered at Police Station Patrakar Nagar, Patna for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

 

The counsel for the appellant submitted that from a plain reading of the FIR, it was evident that it was a money dispute between the parties. The complainant was seeking to get the same recovered by initiating criminal process, which was nothing but misuse thereof. The state's counsel submitted that the appellant cheated the complainant. 

 

Supreme Court observed: "5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR, in our opinion, the appellant deserves concession of pre-arrest bail. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail in connection with aforesaid FIR No.308/2024 on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Needless to add that appellant will continue to cooperate during investigation.