Patna High Court
Birendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 1 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27953 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2021 Thana- BHEJA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Birendra Yadav son of Rameshwar yadav Residents of village - Koriyadhanth
Po- Mahpatia, Ps- Bheja, Dist- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suresh yadav @ Suresh Prasad Yadav Son of late Sahdeo yadav Residents of
village - Koriyadhanth , PS- Bheja, Dist- Madhubani
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jaishankar Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advcocate
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Senior
Counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. This application, under Section 483(3) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been
filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the regular bail granted
to the opposite party no.2, namely Suresh Yadav @ Suresh
Prasad Yadav, by the learned District & Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Jhanjharpur, vide order dated 13.03.2026 passed in
Sessions Trial No.404 of 2024, arising out of Bheja P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
2/43
No.47 of 2021 (G.R. No.903 of 2021), instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302,
504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, as set out in the
fardbayan of the informant recorded at the Darbhanga Medical
College & Hospital on 31.05.2021, is that on 30.05.2021 at about
3:00 P.M., on the land of the informant, the 24 named accused
persons along with 10-15 unknown persons, forming an unlawful
assembly armed with guns and farsa, began constructing a house
and when the younger brother of the informant, namely, Lalan
Yadav, his uncle Mahavir Yadav and his cousin objected to the
same, the accused persons abused and assaulted them.
4. It is specifically alleged that the opposite
party no. 2 fired from his gun at the deceased Lalan Yadav with
the intention to kill, the bullet striking him in the abdomen and
penetrating inside, on which he fell unconscious. Further the co-
accused Balkishore, Ramesh, Dileep and Joginder also fired
several rounds. Subsequently, the injured were taken to the
Primary Health Centre and thereafter referred to the D.M.C.H.,
where, in the course of treatment, Lalan Yadav passed away.
5. The opposite party no.2 had earlier moved
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
3/43
bail applications, the first bail petition of the opposite party no.
2, being Bail Petition No.349 of 2024, was rejected by the
learned court below. Thereafter, his prayer for bail before a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
26944 of 2025, titled 'Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Prasad Yadav vs.
The State of Bihar', was rejected on 07.05.2025. Subsequently,
a further bail petition was filed by the opposite party no.2 before
the learned Court below on 12.01.2026, which was not pressed.
It is on a fresh petition moved before the Court below that the
impugned order dated 13.03.2026 came to be passed.
6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the bail granted to the opposite party no.2
is erroneous since there is a specific and direct allegation against
him of firing the fatal gunshot, which struck the deceased Lalan
Yadav in the abdomen and caused his death, and that this overt
act distinguishes him from the other co-accused, which the
learned court below failed to appreciate.
7. It is further submitted that, after his release,
the opposite party no.2 resumed threatening and intimidating the
petitioner and his family members to withdraw the case, and is
creating fear and obstruction in the peaceful possession of the
petitioner side over the land in question. It is further submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
4/43
that the grant of bail runs contrary to the earlier refusals, namely
Bail Petition No.349 of 2024, which was rejected by the Court
below and Criminal Miscellaneous No.26944 of 2025, which
was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 07.05.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the learned Trial Court while granting bail to the opposite
party no.2 has considered the fact that several witnesses were
declared hostile and remaining witnesses would require more
time to be examined during the trial. In this regard, it has been
submitted that turning hostile of the witnesses, in a case of this
nature, itself indicates intimidation, coercion or undue influence,
and such nature of case ought to have been treated as a
circumstance warranting cancellation of bail and not as a ground
for granting bail to the main assailant of the deceased.
9. Adverting to the order-sheet of the Trial
Court dated 12.02.2026 and 24.02.2026, it has categorically been
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cross-
examination of the informant (P.W.-14) himself was deferred on
multiple occasions at the instance of the accused side. Further,
while the informant himself was yet to be examined, the learned
Trial Court vide order dated 13.03.2026 has enlarged the
opposite party no.2 on bail. Furthermore, it is argued that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
5/43
grant of bail to the opposite party no.2 is likely to hamper the
other remaining witnesses, who are yet to be examined in the
trial. Therefore, it is the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the grant of bail is perverse and cannot be
sustained.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphasized that in the present case, a large group of persons
variously armed with different weapons, had entered into the
land of the petitioner and tried to construct a house and upon
resistance, they not only assaulted the petitioner and his family
members but also shot at the brother and uncle of the informant
and in the said firing, the brother of the informant had died,
which is specifically alleged against the opposite party no.2.
Therefore, it is argued that considering the gravity of offence the
learned Trial Court ought not to have granted bail to the opposite
party no.2.
11. In support of this submission, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of X vs. State
of Rajasthan & Anr. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539,
wherein it was, inter alia, observed as under:-
"14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
6/43
murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial
commences and the prosecution starts
examining its witnesses, the Court be it the
Trial Court or the High Court should be loath
in entertaining the bail application of the
accused.
15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two
things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the
charge is framed and just before the victim is
to be examined by the prosecution before the
trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the
recording of the oral evidence of the victim is
complete by looking into some discrepancies
here or there in the deposition and thereby
testing the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a
correct practice that the Courts below should
adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be
allowed to reach to its final conclusion which
may either result in the conviction of the
accused or acquittal of the accused. The
moment the High Court exercises its
discretion in favour of the accused and orders
release of the accused on bail by looking into
the deposition of the victim, it will have its
own impact on the pending trial when it
comes to appreciating the oral evidence of
the victim. It is only in the event if the trial
gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault
on the part of the accused, the Court may be
justified in ordering his release on bail on the
ground that right of the accused to have a
speedy trial has been infringed."
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
7/43
submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in granting bail
since a Coordinate Bench of this Court had earlier rejected the
bail application of the opposite party no.2 and therefore, the
grant of bail by the Trial Court once the same has been rejected
by this Court, is in violation of judicial discipline, comity and
judicial hierarchy.
13. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has
relied upon the following decisions:-
i. State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota
Subha Rao reported as 1989 Supp (2) SCC
605;
ii. Bimla Devi v. State of Bihar &Ors., reported
as (1994) 2 SCC 8;
iii. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav & Anr., reported as (2004) 7
SCC 528.
14. It has lastly been submitted that a bail order
which is perverse, illegal or passed without application of
judicial mind is liable to be set aside by the superior Court, and
such a power being distinct from the power to cancel bail for
misuse of liberty, no supervening misuse needs to be shown in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
8/43
such a case. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has relied
upon the following decisions:-
i. Puran v. Rambilas & Anr. reported as (2001)
6 SCC 338,
ii. Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat,
reported as (2008) 5 SCC 66,
iii. Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.
reported as (2020) 2 SCC 118,
(iv) Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.,
reported as (2022) 3 SCC 245 and
(v) State of Karnataka vs. Darshan Etc.
reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 =
Neutral Cittaion 2025 INSC 979.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 has supported the impugned order granting
bail and submitted that the considerations governing the
cancellation of bail stand on a footing entirely different from
those governing its grant, and that bail once granted is not to be
cancelled in a routine, mechanical or punitive manner in the
absence of misuse of the liberty, breach of the conditions,
interference with the investigation or the trial, threat to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
9/43
witnesses, an attempt to abscond, or the procurement of bail by
fraud. It has been emphasized that none of the above grounds are
made out in the present case to cancel the bail granted to the
opposite party no.2.
16. It is submitted that the present application
also does not disclose any cogent supervening circumstance
arising after the grant of bail, and is, in substance, a challenge to
the correctness of the original order, upon the very same material
that was before the learned Court below, repackaged as an
application for cancellation, which is impermissible. Further, the
order granting bail was passed in the exercise of judicial
discretion, keeping in view the order of this Court dated
07.05.2025
and its direction to expedite the trial.
17. It is further submitted that, out of the fourteen
witnesses examined before the grant of bail, P.Ws. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 12 and 13 were declared hostile by the prosecution while
the opposite party no. 2 was still in custody, so the apprehension
that the witnesses would turn hostile after his release is
unfounded. It is categorically submitted that the allegation of
suppression of material facts and of threats are general, bald,
unsupported by material particulars, and therefore, the same is
without any substance.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
10/43
18. It is submitted that the there is a long-
standing land dispute between the parties with case and counter-
case between them. It has also been submitted that the son of the
opposite party no. 2 had lodged Bheja P.S. Case No. 53 of 2021,
and, while the opposite party no.2 was in custody, his cousin had
lodged Bheja P.S. Case No.69 of 2024 alleging the murder of the
father of the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, it is the submission
of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that on the
contrary the conduct of the petitioner side does not call for any
indulgence from this Court.
19. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
has placed reliance upon a case rendered in the case of Dolat
Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana, reported as (1995) 1 SCC 349,
and also upon the case of State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay
Gandhi, reported as (1978) 2 SCC 411, for the proposition that
the cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming
supervening circumstances and cannot be ordered upon a mere
re-appreciation of the material that was before the Court at the
time of considering the bail petition. He has further placed
reliance upon the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of
Gujarat, reported as (1984) 1 SCC 284, for the proposition that
bail is not to be cancelled mechanically and in the case of Babu
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
11/43
Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., reported as (1978) 1 SCC 579,
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, reported as (2021) 3 SCC 713,
for the propositions that a renewed prayer is maintainable on a
change of circumstance, the prolonged incarceration and the
slow progress of the trial justify the grant of bail.
20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and considered their submissions. I have also perused the
materials on record, including the impugned order dated
13.03.2026, by which the opposite party no.2 has been granted
bail.
21. Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties
and on a conspectus of the materials on record, the moot
question that arises for consideration in the present application is
whether the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 is illegal,
perverse, founded upon irrelevant considerations, so as to
warrant its annulment by this Court. The present application, in
substance, rests principally upon this question.
22. The facts, shorn of unnecessary detail and
insofar as they bear upon the present controversy, may be
noticed at the outset. The opposite party no.2 stands named in
the F.I.R. with the specific and direct allegation of having fired
the gunshot which struck the brother of the informant, namely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
12/43
Lalan Yadav, in the abdomen and caused his death. The first bail
petition of the opposite party no.2, being Bail Petition No.349 of
2024, was rejected by the learned Court below. Thereafter, his
prayer for bail was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.26944 of 2025, wherein, adverting to the direct allegation of
firing against him and to the nature and gravity of the offence,
this Court declined to enlarge him on bail and directed the
learned Court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same
expeditiously. From the perusal of the paragraph no. 01 of the
impugned Order it appears that a subsequent bail petition filed
by the opposite party no.2 on 12.01.2026 before the learned
Court below was not pressed, whereafter, upon a fresh petition,
the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 came to be passed
enlarging the opposite party no.2 on bail.
23. Paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the order dated
07.05.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.26944 of 2025
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by which the earlier
prayer for bail of the opposite party no.2 was rejected, read as
under:-
“7. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and considering the nature and
gravity of the offence as also there being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
13/43direct allegation of firing against the
petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner, above named, is rejected with a
direction to the court below to expedite the
trial and conclude the same expeditiously.”
24. The impugned order dated 13.03.2026
passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Jhanjharpur, by which the opposite party no.2 was subsequently,
enlarged on bail, reads as under:-
“1. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Suresh
Yadav has not pressed his bail petition filed
on 12.01.2026. Further the Ld. Counsel has
filed fresh bail petition on behalf of the
accused in custody namely Suresh Yadav, S/o
Late Sahdeo Yadav, R/o Village –
Koriyadhanth, P.S.- Bheja, District-
Madhubani, in connection with Bheja P.S.
case No- 47/2021 Gr. No.- 903/2021 U/s-
147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506,
120(B) IPC & 27 Arms Act.
2. Heard Sri Parshu Ram Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D.S. Jha
learned APP for the State.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner has filed BP No.
349/2024 which was rejected and Criminal
Misc No. 26944/2025, filed in Hon’ble Court
was rejected on 07.05.2025. It has further
been submitted that the petitioner is quite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
14/43innocent, has committed no offence and has
falsely been implicated in this case. It has
also been submitted that the petitioner
carries five cases out of which he has been
acquitted in three cases and has been on bail
in two cases. He has further submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since
14.08.2024. He has further submitted that out
of thirty six charge sheeted witnesses,
fourteen witnesses including informant and
his family members have already been
examined in which ten witnesses have been
declared hostile by the prosecution. He has
further submitted that there is land dispute
and case and counter case between the
parties. He has further submitted that co
accused with similar allegation have been
granted bail in this case by Hon’ble Patna
High Court in Criminal Misc. No.20237 of
2023 dated 27.06.2025 and in Criminal Misc.
No.13424 of 2025 dated 11.04.2025. It has
further been submitted that the petitioner is a
local man and is ready to furnish the
satisfactory bailors, if he be enlarged on bail.
The learned counsel prays to allow the
petition.
4. The learned APP opposed the bail petition
and prayed to reject it.
5. The prosecution case in short is that FIR has
been lodged against 24 named and 10-15
unknown accused persons with allegation
that they have reached on a land which is
used to plough by younger brother and other
relative of the informant. When relatives of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
15/43the informant forbid them then the petitioner
and others had attacked by Farsa and done
firing.
6. Perused the case record, case diary,
submissions of both the parties, other
materials available on record and found that
Hon’ble Court while disposing the bail
petition of the petitioner Suresh Yadav in
Criminal Misc. No. 26944/2025 dated
07.05.2025 had directed to the Court below
to expedite the trial and in compliance of
Hon’ble Court order out of thirty six charge
sheeted witnesses, fourteen witnesses
including informant and his family
members have been examined in this case in
which ten witnesses have been declared
hostile and seeing the number of charge
sheeted witnesses, it appears that in
examination of all thirty six witnesses it will
take time. On further perusal, I find that
informant has already been examined and
bailable warrant has been issued against
other absent witnesses. On further perusal I
find that petitioner is in custody since
14.08.2024 and other co-accused with
similar allegation have already been granted
bail by Hon’ble Court in Criminal Misc. No.
20237 of 2023 dated 27.06.2025 and in
Criminal Misc. No. 13424 of 2025 dated
11.04.2025. Admittedly there is land dispute
and case and counter case between the
parties.
7. In the facts and circumstances mentioned
above and keeping in view the period of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
16/43custody, the petitioner Suresh Yadav is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 10000/- with two sureties
of like amount, to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court concerned and with
further condition that 1. The petitioner will
remain physically present till disposal of the
case and absent on two consecutive dates,
the privilege granted will be cancelled. 2.
The petitioner will not influence the
witnesses in any manner. 3. The petitioner
will cooperate in trial.”
25. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it
would be apposite to notice the settled law governing the subject
matter. The law draws a clear distinction between the
cancellation of bail on account of supervening circumstances or
misuse of liberty by the accused, on the one hand, and the
annulment or setting aside, by a superior Court, of an order
granting bail which is unjustified, illegal or perverse, on the
other. In Puran v. Rambilas (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or
perverse order granting bail is totally distinct from cancellation
of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself
or that some supervening circumstance has arisen. The
distinction was lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P & Anr.., reported as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
17/43
(2014) 16 SCC 508, in the following words:-
“12. We have referred to certain principles to be
kept in mind while granting bail, as has been
laid down by this Court from time to time. It
is well settled in law that cancellation of bail
after it is granted because the accused has
misconducted himself or of some supervening
circumstances warranting such cancellation
have occurred is in a different compartment
altogether than an order granting bail which
is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a
case, the relevant factors which should have
been taken into consideration while dealing
with the application for bail and have not
been taken note of bail or it is founded on
irrelevant considerations, indisputably the
superior court can set aside the order of
such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to
a different category and is in a separate
realm. While dealing with a case of second
nature, the Court does not dwell upon the
violation of conditions by the accused or the
supervening circumstances that have
happened subsequently. It, on the contrary,
delves into the justifiability and the
soundness of the order passed by the Court.”
(emphasis supplied).
26. The illustrative circumstances in which an
order granting bail may itself be set aside were summarized by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State
of U.P. & Anr., reported as (2022) 8 SCC 559, as under:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
18/43“33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail
cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening
circumstances. This Court certainly has inherent
powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an
accused even in the absence of supervening
circumstances. Following are the illustrative
circumstances where the bail can be cancelled :-
33.1 Where the court granting bail takes
into account irrelevant material of
substantial nature and not trivial nature
while ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks
the influential position of the accused in
comparison to the victim of abuse or the
witnesses especially when there is prima facie
misuse of position and power over the victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and
conduct of the accused is completely ignored
while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on
untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found
in the order granting bail thereby causing
prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not
appropriate in the first place given the very
serious nature of the charges against the
accused which disentitles him for bail and
thus cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is
apparently whimsical, capricious and
perverse in the facts of the given case.”
(emphasis supplied).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
19/43
27. The position has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr.,
reported as (2024) 10 SCC 768, in the following words:-
“27. It is equally well settled that bail once
granted, ought not to be cancelled in a
mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned
or perverse order of bail is always open to
interference by the superior court. If there are
serious allegations against the accused, even
if he has not misused the bail granted to him,
such an order can be cancelled by the same
Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also
be revoked by a superior court if it
transpires that the courts below have
ignored the relevant material available on
record or not looked into the gravity of the
offence or the impact on the society
resulting in such an order. In P v. State of
M.P. (2022) 15 SCC 211 decided by a three-
Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one
of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the
considerations that must weigh with the
Court for interfering in an order granting
bail to an accused under Section 439(1)
CrPC in the following words : (SCC p. 224,
para 24)“24. As can be discerned from the
above decisions, for cancelling bail
once granted, the court must consider
whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the
conduct of the accused post grant of
bail demonstrates that it is no longer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
20/43conducive to a fair trial to permit him
to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial [Dolat
Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1
SCC 349 . To put it differently, in
ordinary circumstances, this Court
would be loathe to interfere with an
order passed by the court below
granting bail but if such an order is
found to be illegal or perverse or
premised on material that is
irrelevant, then such an order is
susceptible to scrutiny and
interference by the appellate court.”
Considerations for setting aside bail orders.
28. The considerations that weigh with the
appellate court for setting aside the bail
order on an application being moved by the
aggrieved party include any supervening
circumstances that may have occurred after
granting relief to the accused, the conduct of
the accused while on bail, any attempt on the
part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting
in delaying the trial, any instance of threats
being extended to the witnesses while on bail,
any attempt on the part of the accused to
tamper with the evidence in any manner. We
may add that this list is only illustrative and
not exhaustive. However, the court must be
cautious that at the stage of granting bail,
only a prima facie case needs to be examined
and detailed reasons relating to the merits of
the case that may cause prejudice to the
accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
21/43
state that the bail order should reveal the
factors that have been considered by the
Court for granting relief to the accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9
SCC 321, a three-Judge Bench of this Court,
has observed that the power to grant bail
under Section 439 CrPC is of wide amplitude
and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as
the case may be, is bestowed with
considerable discretion while deciding an
application for bail. But this discretion is not
unfettered. The order passed must reflect
due application of judicial mind following
well-established principles of law. In
ordinary course, courts would be slow to
interfere with the order where bail has been
granted by the courts below. But if it is
found that such an order is illegal or
perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant
material, the appellate court would be well
within its power to set aside and cancel the
bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6
SCC 338; Narendra K. Amin v. State of
Gujarat (2008) 13 SCC 584.”
28. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the
case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc. (supra), has
exhaustively surveyed the entire jurisprudence on the subject and
has held as under:-
“18. Let us now examine the jurisprudence on
when bail may be annulled or cancelled. Two
distinct categories have emerged in this
regard:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
22/43(A) Annulment of Bail due to legal infirmity
in the order; and(B) Cancellation of Bail, i.e., revocation of
bail due to post-grant misconduct or
supervening circumstances.
(A). Annulment of bail orders
18.1. This refers to the appellate or revisional power to
set aside a bail order that is perverse, unjustified, or
passed in violation of settled legal principles. It is
concerned with defects existing at the time the bail
was granted, without reference to subsequent
conduct.
xxxx
20.4. Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses
does not justify grant of bail.
20.4.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a
charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible right
to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged
trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the
offence, the incriminating material gathered during
investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with
witnesses.
xxx
22.4. An order that overlooks material evidence or
proceeds on an erroneous premise is perverse, and
such perversity forms a valid ground for cancellation
or setting aside of bail.” (emphasis supplied).
29. From the aforequoted judgments, the
following propositions of law emerge. Firstly, the cancellation of
bail already granted requires cogent and overwhelming
supervening circumstances, such as misuse of the liberty,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
23/43
tampering with the evidence, intimidation of the witnesses or
evasion of justice, and cannot be founded upon a mere re-
appreciation of the material which was before the Court at the
time of the grant. Secondly, the annulment, by the superior
Court, of an order granting bail which is illegal, perverse,
founded upon irrelevant considerations or passed in ignorance of
the relevant material, is concerned with the defects existing at
the time of the grant itself, and may be exercised irrespective of
any subsequent misconduct on the part of the accused. It is upon
this twofold touchstone that the present application falls to be
examined.
30. Upon a close perusal of the impugned order
dated 13.03.2026 with the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, it is evident that the impugned
order came to be passed on substantially the same material which
was available before this Court when the prayer for bail of the
opposite party no.2 was rejected on merits, upon a consideration
of the direct allegation of firing against him and of the nature and
gravity of the offence. The only developments in the
interregnum were the examination of fourteen of the thirty-six
charge-sheeted witnesses and the passage of time. Neither of
these, singly or cumulatively, constitutes a substantial change in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
24/43
the fact situation, having a direct impact upon the earlier
decision of this Court. It is settled beyond doubt that a Court
subordinate in the judicial hierarchy may not, on the same
material, grant a relief, which the superior Court has
categorically and expressly declined.
31. As long ago as in State of Maharashtra v.
Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, reported as 1989 Supp (2)
SCC 605, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that judicial
discipline, propriety and comity demands that the orders passed
by the Trial Court reversing earlier orders or taking a different
view than the superior Courts in subsequent bail applications,
must record a substantial change in the facts situation.
32. In Bimla Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar,
reported as (1994) 2 SCC 8, where a Magistrate had granted bail
to an accused of murder despite the rejection of two successive
bail applications by the High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“2. In view of the fact that the Judicial
Magistrate at a later stage has himself
cancelled the bail, it is not necessary for us to
pass any order with regard to the petitioner’s
prayer for cancellation of bail but the
disturbing feature of the case is that though
two successive applications of the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
25/43for grant of bail were rejected by the High
Court yet the learned Magistrate granted
provisional bail. The course adopted by the
learned Magistrate is not only contrary to
settled principles of judicial discipline and
propriety but also contrary to the statutory
provisions. (See in this connection Shahzad
Hasan Khan case (1987) 2 SCC 684. The
manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt
with the case can give rise to the
apprehensions which were expressed by the
complainant in her complaint, which was
treated by this Court as a writ petition and is
being dealt with as such. In the course that
we are adopting, we would not like to
comment upon the manner in which the
learned Magistrate dealt with the case any
more at this stage. We, in the facts and
circumstances stated above, direct that a
copy of this order be sent to the Chief Justice
of the Patna High Court for taking such
action on the administrative side as may be
deemed fit by him.”
33. The same principle was applied by the
Rajasthan High Court in Padam Chand Jain v. State of
Rajasthan, reported as 1990 SCC OnLine Raj 57, in terms
apposite to the present case, wherein it was held:-
“7. The question is as to whether if on certain
material without any change of
circumstances and it may be stated that
filing of charge-sheet cannot be
considered to be a change of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
26/43circumstance, this court had disallowed
bail, whether the propriety demands and
whether it was proper for the learned
Sessions Judge to allow the bail to the
accused? It may be stated that the
practice of this court is that if an
application under Sec. 438 or 439 Cr. P.C.
is dealt with by a Judge of this Court and
then the second bail application of that
accused is filed, then the said bail
application is to be placed before the
same judge who has already dismissed his
bail application. I have no doubt in my
mind that on the same material if this
Court has already dismissed an
application for bail filed by an accused,
the learned Sessions Judge should not
allow that bail application. The Supreme
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (J),
which was a case where some bail
applications were put in the High Court,
one set of bail applications was dismissed
by one learned Judge of the High Court,
but other bail application made thereafter
to the other Judge who had enlarged the
accused on bail only after two days after
the dismissal of earlier bail application
and it was nobody’s case that during
those two days drastic changes had taken
place necessitating the release of the
accused on bail. The Court said that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
27/43‘Before the ink was dry on
Puranik, J’s order it was upturned
by the impugned order. It is not as
if the Court passing the impugned
order was not aware of the
decision of Puranik, J. in fact there
is a reference to the same in the
impugned order. Could this be
done in the absence of new facts
and changed circumstances? What
is important to realise is that in
Criminal Application No. 375 of
1989; the respondent had made an
identical request as is obvious from
one of the prayers (extracted
earlier) made there in. Once that
application was rejected there was
no question of granting a similar
prayer. That is virtually
overruling the earlier decision
without there being a change in
the fact-situation. And, when we
speak of change, we mean a
substantial one which has a direct
impact on the earlier decision and
not merely cosmetic change which
are of little or no consequence.
Between the two orders there was a
gap of only two days and it is
nobody’s case that during these
two days drastic changes had
taken place necessitating the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
28/43release of the respondent on bail.
Judicial discipline, propriety and
comity demanded that the
impugned order should not have
been passed reversing all the
earlier orders including the one
rendered by Puranik, J. only a
couple of days before in the
absence of any substantial change
in the fact-situation. I am
therefore of the opinion that in
the fact-situation of the present
case where the earlier bail
application had been dismissed by
this Court, the judicial propriety
demanded that the learned
Sessions Judge should not have
allowed the bail to the accused-
non-petitioner.”
(emphasis supplied).
34. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while emphasising the requirement of
indicating reasons for the grant of bail, particularly where the
accused stands charged of a serious offence, held in categorical
terms that the Court entertaining a successive bail applications
has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the
earlier bail applications were rejected, and to record what the
fresh grounds are which persuade it to take a view different from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
29/43the one taken in the earlier applications. It has been held as
under:-
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail
is very well settled. The court granting bail
should exercise its discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course.
Though at the stage of granting bail a
detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merit of the
case need not be undertaken, there is a need
to indicate in such orders reasons for prima
facie concluding why bail was being granted
particularly where the accused is charged of
having committed a serious offence. Any
order devoid of such reasons would suffer
from non-application of mind. It is also
necessary for the court granting bail to
consider among other circumstances, the
following factors also before granting bail;
they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the
severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the
complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge. (See
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran
v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
30/43xxx
20. Before concluding, we must note that
though an accused has a right to make
successive applications for grant of bail the
court entertaining such subsequent bail
applications has a duty to consider the
reasons and grounds on which the earlier
bail applications were rejected. In such
cases, the court also has a duty to record
what are the fresh grounds which persuade
it to take a view different from the one taken
in the earlier applications. In the impugned
order we do not see any such fresh ground
recorded by the High Court while granting
bail. It also failed to take into consideration
that at least on four occasions order refusing
bail has been affirmed by this Court and
subsequently when the High Court did grant
bail, this Court by its order dated 26-7-2000
cancelled the said bail by a reasoned order.
From the impugned order, we do not notice
any indication of the fact that the High Court
took note of the grounds which persuaded
this Court to cancel the bail. Such approach
of the High Court, in our opinion, is violative
of the principle of binding nature of
judgments of the superior court rendered in a
lis between the same parties, and in effect
tends to ignore and thereby render ineffective
the principles enunciated therein which have
a binding character.” (emphasis supplied).
35. The vice of the omission of the Court
granting bail to advert to the reasons which impelled the superior
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
31/43
Court to decline bail was recently explained by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohseen v. State of U.P. & Anr.,
reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 919, wherein it has been held
as under:-
“23. The first and most fundamental infirmity in
the impugned order is the complete absence
of any engagement with the order dated
27.01.2025 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl)
No.18256 / 2024 whereunder the first bail of
the respondent no.2 was cancelled. The
impugned order does not advert to the
reasons that impelled this Court to cancel
bail, nor does it identify any supervening
circumstances or changed factual matrix that
might justify a departure from the position
adopted by this Court in the earlier round.
24. While there is no absolute bar against a High
Court granting bail to an accused whose
bail was previously cancelled by this Court,
the grant of bail must be supported by
reasons demonstrating either a change in
circumstances or the existence of fresh
grounds not considered by this Court at the
time of cancellation.” (emphasis supplied).
36. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
principles, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The
impugned order does not advert to, much less discuss, the
reasons which impelled the Coordinate Bench of this Court to
decline bail to the opposite party no.2, namely, the specific and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
32/43
direct allegation of firing the fatal shot and the nature and gravity
of the offence. The impugned order falls totally silent on whether
any substantial change in circumstance had intervened between
the rejection of the prayer for bail by this Court on 07.05.2025
and the passing of the impugned order on 13.03.2026. The
import of the impugned order, therefore, becomes that the
learned Trial Court has, in effect, reviewed the order of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 07.05.2025, a course
wholly impermissible in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s
Netsity Systems (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported as
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2079, while deprecating a similar course,
has enumerated the grounds of interference by the superior
Court, namely, perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law and
relevant factors not been taken into consideration, and has
emphasised the level of weightage which the decisions of the
superior Courts must be accorded by the Courts below.
37. The matter, however, does not rest there. The
principal consideration which has decisively weighed with the
learned Trial Court, as is manifest from paragraph 6 of the
impugned order, is that out of the fourteen witnesses examined,
ten witnesses had been declared hostile by the prosecution, and
that the examination of the remaining witnesses would consume
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
33/43
time. In the considered opinion of this Court, the hostility of the
prosecution witnesses is not a consideration germane to the grant
of bail, and reliance thereupon has introduced into the impugned
order an element which is wholly irrelevant in law. It is well
settled that at the stage of considering a prayer for bail, the Court
cannot enter into the credibility and reliability of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution, which is an exercise reserved
exclusively for the trial.
38. Indeed, far from furnishing a ground for
enlargement, the wholesale turning hostile of the witnesses, in a
trial arising out of a broad daylight occurrence in which a direct
and specific allegation of firing the fatal gunshot stands
attributed to the opposite party no.2, is a circumstance which
ought to have excited the caution and vigilance of the learned
Trial Court rather than allayed it.
39. The decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
(supra) is instructive on this facet of the matter as well. In that
case, a large number of witnesses examined after the accused
therein was enlarged on bail had turned hostile, and the High
Court had, nonetheless, granted bail upon the grounds of the
period of incarceration and the large number of witnesses yet to
be examined. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while setting aside
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
34/43
the order of the High Court, held as under:-
“18. We agree that a conclusive finding in regard
to the points urged by both the sides is not
expected of the court considering a bail
application. Still one should not forget, as
observed by this Court in the case Puran v.
Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 “Giving reasons
is different from discussing merits or
demerits. At the stage of granting bail a
detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merits of the
case has not to be undertaken. … That did
not mean that whilst granting bail some
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail
was being granted did not have to be
indicated.” We respectfully agree with the
above dictum of this Court. We also feel that
such expression of prima facie reasons for
granting bail is a requirement of law in cases
where such orders on bail application are
appealable, more so because of the fact that
the appellate court has every right to know
the basis for granting the bail. Therefore, we
are not in agreement with the argument
addressed by the learned counsel for the
accused that the High Court was not
expected even to indicate a prima facie
finding on all points urged before it while
granting bail, more so in the background of
the facts of this case where on facts it is
established that a large number of witnesses
who were examined after the respondent was
enlarged on bail had turned hostile and there
are complaints made to the court as to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
35/43threats administered by the respondent or his
supporters to witnesses in the case. In such
circumstances, the Court was duty-bound to
apply its mind to the allegations put forth by
the investigating agency and ought to have
given at least a prima facie finding in regard
to these allegations because they go to the
very root of the right of the accused to seek
bail. The non-consideration of these vital
facts as to the allegations of threat or
inducement made to the witnesses by the
respondent during the period he was on bail
has vitiated the conclusions arrived at by the
High Court while granting bail to the
respondent. The other ground apart from the
ground of incarceration which appealed to
the High Court to grant bail was the fact that
a large number of witnesses are yet to be
examined and there is no likelihood of the
trial coming to an end in the near future. As
stated hereinabove, this ground on the facts
of this case is also not sufficient either
individually or coupled with the period of
incarceration to release the respondent on
bail because of the serious allegations of
tampering with the witnesses made against
the respondent.
19. The next argument of learned counsel for the
respondent is that prima facie the prosecution
has failed to produce any material to
implicate the respondent in the crime of
conspiracy. In this regard, he submitted that
most of the witnesses have already turned
hostile. The only other evidence available to
the prosecution to connect the respondent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
36/43with the crime is an alleged confession of the
co-accused which according to the learned
counsel was inadmissible in evidence.
Therefore, he contends that the High Court
was justified in granting bail since the
prosecution has failed to establish even a
prima facie case against the respondent.
From the High Court order we do not find
this as a ground for granting bail. Be that as
it may, we think that this argument is too
premature for us to accept. The admissibility
or otherwise of the confessional statement
and the effect of the evidence already
adduced by the prosecution and the merit of
the evidence that may be adduced
hereinafter including that of the witnesses
sought to be recalled are all matters to be
considered at the stage of the trial.”
(emphasis supplied).
40. A similar view has been taken by the
Karnataka High Court in the case of Sayyad Ali v. State of
Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.100417 of 2022 (Neutral
Citation No.2022:KHC-D:10665), decided on 30.09.2022,
wherein, declining bail to an accused of murder notwithstanding
that several prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.
41. The submission of learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 that the witnesses turned hostile whilst the
opposite party no.2 was still in custody, and that the
apprehension of the remaining witnesses being won over is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
37/43
therefore unfounded, does not carry the matter any further. The
question, at this stage, is not whether the hostility of the
witnesses is attributable to the opposite party no.2, the question
is whether such hostility could, in law, constitute a cogent
ground for his enlargement on bail. For the reasons indicated
hereinabove, it could not. In any event, the informant (P.W.-14)
and the remaining witnesses are yet to be fully examined, and the
apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner that the
release of the opposite party no.2, who is alleged to be the main
assailant, would imperil the remainder of the trial, cannot be said
to be fanciful.
42. Equally untenable is the second consideration
which weighed with the learned Trial Court, namely, that the
examination of all the thirty-six charge-sheeted witnesses would
consume time. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar (supra), and as reiterated in State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (supra), the mere prospect of a
prolonged trial or a lengthy list of witnesses cannot, by itself,
outweigh the gravity of the offence and the material collected in
the course of the investigation, and the grant of bail solely on the
ground of the passage of time or the period of incarceration
vitiates the order. What is more concerning is that the direction
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
38/43
of this Court dated 07.05.2025 to the learned Court below was to
expedite the trial and conclude it expeditiously, which the
learned Trial Court has, instead, converted the pendency of the
very trial which it was directed to expedite into a ground for
enlarging the opposite party no.2 on bail. A direction for the
expeditious conclusion of the trial cannot be permitted to be
stood on its head in this manner.
43. The course adopted by the learned Trial Court
also runs counter to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in X v. State of Rajasthan (supra), extracted
hereinabove, that in serious offences like murder, once the trial
has commenced and the prosecution has begun examining its
witnesses, the Court should be loath to entertain the bail
application of the accused, and that the trial, once commenced,
should be allowed to reach its final conclusion. In the present
case, the trial had not merely commenced but had progressed to a
substantial stage, fourteen of the thirty-six witnesses have been
examined, and the cross-examination of the informant (P.W.-14)
has been deferred at the instance of the accused side, which is
evident from the order-sheets of the Trial Court dated 12.02.2026
and 24.02.2026. It was at this very stage that the learned Trial
Court chose to enlarge the opposite party no.2 on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
39/43
44. The reliance placed by the learned Trial
Court upon the orders of this Court granting bail to the co-
accused in Criminal Miscellaneous No.20237 of 2023 and
Criminal Miscellaneous No.13424 of 2025, on the plea of parity,
is equally misconceived. As per the F.I.R., it is the opposite party
no.2 who fired the gunshot which struck the deceased Lalan
Yadav in the abdomen and caused his death. The allegation
against the opposite party no.2 is, therefore, not only direct and
distinct but also graver than that against the co-accused who
have been enlarged on bail. It is settled that parity cannot be
claimed where the role attributed to the accused is different and
more serious, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Neeru Yadav (supra), wherein the mechanical application of the
doctrine of parity, in disregard of the material distinguishing the
case of the accused, was itself held to render the order perverse.
It bears repetition that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had,
on 07.05.2025, declined bail to the opposite party no.2 upon the
very footing of the direct allegation of firing against him, thereby
distinguishing his case. The learned Trial Court, in extending the
benefit of parity notwithstanding that categorical consideration,
has once again sat in review over the order of this Court.
45. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
40/43
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 is
perverse, founded upon considerations which are irrelevant in
law and in disregard of the reasons that weighed with the
Coordinate Bench of this Court as recorded in the Order dated
07.05.2025 and having failed to record any substantial change in
circumstance, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be
sustained.
46. In the result, the present application is
allowed in the following terms:-
i. The impugned order dated 13.03.2026 passed
by Sri Anil Kumar Ram, the District &
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jhanjharpur, in
Sessions Trial No.404 of 2024, arising out of
Bheja P.S. Case No.47 of 2021, enlarging the
opposite party no.2, Suresh Yadav @ Suresh
Prasad Yadav, on bail, is set aside.
ii. The bail granted to the opposite party no.2 vide
the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 is
hereby cancelled and the bail bonds furnished
by him also stand cancelled. The opposite
party no.2 shall surrender before the learned
Trial Court within a period of two weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
41/43from today, failing which the Superintendent
of Police, Madhubani shall take all necessary
steps to secure his arrest.
47. Before parting with the case, this Court is
constrained to observe the manner in which the District &
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jhanjharpur has dealt with the
prayer for bail of the opposite party no.2. Despite the rejection of
the prayer for bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on
07.05.2025, upon a categorical consideration of the direct
allegation of firing and of the gravity of the offence, the Trial
Court proceeded, on substantially the same material and without
recording any substantial change in circumstance, enlarged the
opposite party no.2 on bail, which are irrelevant in law. In the
case of M/s Netsity Systems (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, upon finding that the Courts below had granted
and sustained bail in disregard of the findings recorded by the
superior Courts, directed the judicial officers concerned to
undergo special judicial training at the Judicial Academy, with
particular focus on the conduct of judicial proceedings in matters
where the decisions of the superior Courts are involved and the
level of weightage to be accorded thereto.
48. Prima facie, the impugned order appears to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
42/43
have been passed on the same material on which earlier the bail
of the opposite party no.2 had been rejected by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court and without adverting either to the reasons
recorded in the said order or to any substantial change in
circumstance. In the opinion of this Court, such a course reflects
a disregard of judicial discipline and propriety and the District &
Additional Sessons Judge, III, Jhanjharpur has acted recklessly,
which this Court cannot countenance.
49. In these circumstances, the Office is directed
to forthwith send a copy of this order, along with the relevant
records, to Sri Anil Kumar Ram, the District & Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Jhanjharpur, who shall submit his show
cause, within four weeks from today and explain as to why
appropriate proceedings, including a recommendation for special
judicial training at the Bihar Judicial Academy in the light of the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Netsity Systems
(P) Ltd. (supra), be not initiated against him.
50. The Show-cause must be filed by Sri Anil
Kumar Ram, the District & Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Jhanjharpur, within four weeks from today.
51. List this case after five weeks under the
heading “For Orders” for consideration of show-cause.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27953 of 2026 dt.01-07-2026
43/43
52. It is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are confined to the consideration of the present
application and shall not be construed as an expression of any
opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be decided by the
learned Trial Court uninfluenced by the same.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N/A. Uploading Date 03.07.2026 Transmission Date 03.07.2026
