Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 104Termination Of Services Of Anganwadi Supervisor Without Following Procedure, Patna HC RevokesCase Title: Kiran Devi vs The State of Bihar and OrsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 1A single judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that termination of Anganwadi Supervisor from the service without following...
Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 104
Termination Of Services Of Anganwadi Supervisor Without Following Procedure, Patna HC Revokes
Case Title: Kiran Devi vs The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 1
A single judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that termination of Anganwadi Supervisor from the service without following the termination procedure under Clause XIV of the Pervekshika Niyojan Margdarshika is invalid.
The State Government created the Anganwadi Center No. 206 in Ward No. 8, Pilapur, Bhojpur District. Therefore the positions of Anganwadi Sevika/ Sahayika were advertised in 2016. Fourteen applications were received for the advertised post. There petitioner got the highest merit score and was selected during a public meeting (Aam Sabha) on November 12, 2016, in the presence of officials. No objections were raised during the provided time. However, after the selection process, some villagers raised allegations claiming that petitioner's academic documents were forged. Despite these objections, the C.D.P.O., Jagdishpur decided to proceed with her appointment.
Recovery Of Excess Pension Payments From Retired Class-III Employee Impermissible: Patna HC
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Sinha vs The Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 2
A Single Judge Bench consisting Justice Purnendu Singh allowed a writ petition that challenged the recovery of excess pension payments made to a retired Central Industrial Security Force Sub-Inspector. Following State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the court ruled that recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees is impermissible when the error is administrative and not due to employee misrepresentation. Thus, the court ordered restoration of full pensionary benefits without any deductions.
Case Title: Bijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar Bimal vs State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 3
The Patna High Court in a judgment delivered recently, quashed the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate of offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court held that cognizance for the offence under Section 188 IPC cannot be taken on the basis of a police report and must adhere strictly to the requirements of Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Case Title: Kamlesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 4
A Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justice Arvind Singh Chandel allowed a Petition challenging an Order of Recovery from a Retired Clerk who was paid an excess amount due to alleged wrong pay fixation. The Court reiterated that the recovery of excess amount paid by mistake is not permissible in cases where the recovery is made in case of employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service and also in cases where the Recovery is sought for the excess amount received by Employees for a period more than five years before the order of recovery is issued.
'Re-evaluation Is Not Permissible In Cases Where Authorities Have Ensured Clarity', Patna High Court
Case Title: Bihar Public Service Commission versus Dr. Eena Bahan & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 5
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia while setting aside a judgment of a Single Judge directing re-evaluation held that in cases related to re-evaluation, the court may permit such re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is committed. The Bench observed that in cases where proper care has been taken the authorities to ensure fair treatment and justice and the same is proven in the Court, re-evaluation may not be directed.
Case Title: Draupadi Kunwar @ Draupati Kunwar and Ors vs The State of Bihar and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 6
The Patna High Court has held that those not charge-sheeted by the police can also be summoned to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure India, 1973 (Cr.PC) if strong and cogent evidence against them surfaces during the trial.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, while dismissing the criminal revision petition filed by Draupadi Kunwar and others, observed, “The Court is empowered to summon any person to be tried together with the accused if it appears to the Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced during the ongoing trial, that he has committed the offence.”
Case Title: M/s R.S. Contruction Versus Building Construction Department
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 7
The Patna High Court has held that a clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the parties in the appointment process of arbitrators.
The court observed that therein, an arbitrator was appointed in both the request case and later a review was filed by the State, the review petitioner, contending that the arbitrator was appointed on the first date itself without giving an opportunity to the State to raise its objections.
Case Title: The State of Bihar V. M/s Baba Hans Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 8
The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya has held that procedural impediments in the government machinery are not a 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Additionally, the court held that the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors in condoning delay.
Breath Analyzer Test Is Not Conclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR
Case Title: Narendra Kumar Ram vs The State Of Bihar and Ors
Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 9
The Patna High Court has reiterated that a breathalyzer test alone is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption and the same cannot be the sole basis of criminal prosecution under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri presiding over the case said, “This Court has no other alternative but to hold that the authorities failed to consider the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and based on a breath analyzer report, which cannot be said to be conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol, an F.I.R. has been registered.”
Purchaser Can Get Title Conveyed Only If Seller Has Title To Property: Patna High Court
Case Title: Surendra Kumar and Anr vs State of Bihar ad anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 10
The Patna High Court has reiterated that a purchaser can acquire a valid title to a property only if the seller possesses a legal title to transfer.
Justice Jitendra Kumar while delivering the judgment in a criminal case launched over alleged false transfer of Petitioner's property y accused said, “the complainant has not parted with any property to the Accused persons, nor has he executed the sale-deed. As such, his title, if any, to the land in question, is still safe, because his title cannot get conveyed to purchaser if the conveyance deed/sale-deed has been executed by someone else, who is not possessed of the title to the land in question. A purchaser can get the title conveyed only if the seller has title to the property.”
Case Title: Rakesh Rai vs The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 11
The Patna High Court has reiterated that the involvement of a juvenile in an offense of serious nature is not, by itself, a ground for denying bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
It thus overturned the order of the Children Court, which had rejected the bail petition of the appellant on the grounds that he was involved in a murder case, had bad company, and that his release would expose him to criminal influences and defeat the ends of justice.
Case Title: Ram Autar Rai vs The State Of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 12
The Patna High Court has ruled that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not empower the Maintenance Tribunal to entertain complaints that do not seek maintenance or challenge a property transfer.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “As per the statutory provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it clearly transpires that the Act has been enacted to provide for effective provision for maintenance and welfare to parents and senior citizens granted and recognized under the constitution and for matters connected therewith and instituted thereto.”“The detail provision of the Act shows that parents and the senior citizens can seek for maintenance from the persons concerned who are liable under the Act or they can also get the transfer of any property made in favour of the person concerned declared void subject to fulfillment of the conditions but none of such relief has been sought for by the applicants,” Justice Kumar added.
Case Title: Company Ram @ Tiran Ram and ors vs The State of Bihar and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 13
The Patna High Court has held that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) a father-in-law is not automatically liable to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law unless he has sufficient income from the co-parcenary property.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, emphasized, “Section 19 clearly shows that liability of father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law is dependent upon income from the co-parcenary property, if any. But learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no such coparcenary property. There is only one residential house for the joint family where the complainant is free to live. He also submits that the father-in-law is just a pensioner and has no additional means to maintain her daughter-in-law. Moreover, mother-in-law has no liability to maintain her daughter-in-law. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.”
Case Title - Angela Lee Hicks vs. The State of Bihar and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 14
The Patna High Court on Monday came down heavily on the Bihar Police for its “lethargic and lackadaisical” approach in handling the sexual abuse case of a 13-year-old foreign national, stating that the role of the police authority in the matter had “tarnished the image of the country where protection of justice, social, political and economic was granted in the preamble of the Constitution.”
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri's bench expressed deep concerns over the State/Darbhanga police's failure to promptly register an FIR in the matter, conduct a thorough investigation, and submit a chargesheet with appropriate evidence as submitted by the minor's parents.
CaseTitle: Nand Jee Singh and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 15
The Patna High Court has held that an Executive Magistrate is expected to invoke proceedings under Section 145 CrPC only when there is an apprehension of breach of public peace, adding that the condition precedent for initiating such proceedings is his satisfaction regarding such apprehension.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, stated, “The condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is the satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate regarding apprehension of breach of public peace on account of dispute relating to the actual possession of the subject property. Such satisfaction must be based on grounds mentioned in the preliminary order made under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C.”
Case Title: Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 16
The Patna High Court has held that institutionalization should be a measure of last resort and that the family is the primary institution for the rehabilitation and reintegration of a child in conflict with the law. It thus set aside the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case, ruling that the juvenile justice system is reformatory, not punitive.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, while delivering the judgment, stated, “Reformatory or Observation Home is one of the measures contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating the delinquent children. However, the family of the child in conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the Act. Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or foster parents of the child, and it has been contemplated that every child in conflict with law has the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law has been contemplated as the last resort.”
Case Title: Kashi Kant Jha v. State Of Bihar and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 17
The Patna High Court has ruled that an individual cannot be compelled to allow drainage from a neighbour's house onto their private property under the guise of preventing a public nuisance. The High Court emphasized that an individual's right to property is constitutionally protected and that no person can be forced to endure a nuisance on their land due to another's actions.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “The land of the petitioner on which dirty water was flowing from the courtyard of complainant/ O.P. No. 2 is his raiyati land as admitted by Circle Officer and D.C.L.R and hence, the complainant/O.P. No. 2 had no right to flow his dirty water from his courtyard on the land of the petitioner, because no one can use his property to illegal harm, damage or nuisance to the neighbor.”
Pay Verification Cell Cannot Unilaterally Override University's Pay Fixation Of Employees: Patna HC
Case Title: Smt. Kanchan Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 18
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar ruled that the Pay Verification Cell under the Education Department cannot unilaterally override pay fixation decisions made by a university's statutory committee.
The court held that objections from the Pay Verification Cell should be treated as audit objections; they require the university to notify affected employees and seek their responses before any action is taken. The court ruled that the final decision on pay fixation must come from the university, as the Pay Verification Cell lacks any jurisdiction in this regard.
Fresh Disciplinary Enquiry After Submission Of Enquiry Report Impermissible: Patna HC
Case Title: Praduman Kumar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 19
A single judge bench of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel set aside an order for fresh disciplinary enquiry against a government servant, finding it impermissible under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.
The court held that after submission of an enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has limited options and cannot start a de novo enquiry. The court directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order within two weeks.
Case Title: Ram Padarath Singh and Ors v. The State Of Bihar and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 20
The Patna High Court has held that parallel proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.PC are unsustainable when a civil suit concerning the same property is already pending, and that an attachment order under Section 146(1) Cr.PC requires an “emergent situation” which is more than a mere apprehension of breach of peace.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “It is also pertinent to point out that if a Civil Suit regarding title and possession is pending in regard to the property in question in a Civil Court, a parallel proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC is not permissible. It would be sheer wastage of public time and money. The Civil Court is also competent to adjudicate the dispute regarding actual possession of the property between the parties and pass interim order during pendency of the Civil Suit.”
Case Title: M/s Pramila Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Okinawa Autotech International Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 21
The Patna High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar has held that in the absence of any clause in the agreement apart from Clause 36.3, which speaks of the “venue” being Delhi, there cannot be any other inference or intention of the parties for the “venue” and the “seat” being different.
Additionally, the court noted that the agreement in question does not mention the “seat” of arbitration but only mentions the “venue” for arbitration, which shall be at New Delhi. Thus, Delhi High Court only shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present request.
Case Title: Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust v. Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 22
The Patna High Court dismissed multiple petitions seeking the cancellation and re-examination of the integrated 70th Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination (CCE). The court ruled that there was “no definite evidence of malpractice at all centres” in the preliminary tests conducted on December 13, 2024.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarathy, held that “After having gone through the records and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have found that though there has been a consistent and loud demand of re-examination for all the candidates on the grounds of paper leak and non-observance of the SOP by the Commission, but except for the proof of disturbance at BPP Centre at Patna, which was one of the biggest centres, accommodating maximum number of candidates, there is no serious complaint from any other centre.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 23
The Patna High Court in a ruling has reaffirmed that a Muslim woman, even after being divorced, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) if her former husband has not made sufficient provision for her livelihood during the iddat period or thereafter.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that the existence of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not negate the remedies available under Section 125 Cr.PC.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 24
The Patna High Court rejected a father's plea for custody over his minor daughter, after noting that the girl who has been living with her maternal grandfathers since she was an infant, would feel more warmth, affection and sense of security in their company today as compared to living in her father's company.
Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra however made it clear that it has not observed that the father is unfit to be his minor daughter's legal guardian, who is now 10 years old.
Case Title: Anisha Raj v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 25
The Patna High Court has directed the State Government to transfer a fourth-year BDS student from the derecognised Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, to Patna Dental College, Patna, within four weeks. The direction was issued considering that the student was nearing completion of her course and that equity lay in her favour.
Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, presiding over the matter, ruled, “It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is student of 4th year of the BDS course as such the equity is in favour of the petitioner and she is entitled to be transferred to another college.”
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Shaw v. Smt. Anjali Kumari Shaw
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 26
The Patna High Court has held that mere allegations of a mental disorder such as schizophrenia cannot justify a plea for divorce unless it is proved that the disorder is of such a kind and degree that the partner cannot reasonably be expected to live together.
The Division Bench of Justices Sunil Dutta Mishra and P. B. Bajanthri emphasised that vague or unsubstantiated claims regarding mental illness or cruelty are insufficient to attract the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib), or (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 27
The Patna High Court has upheld the constitutional and statutory validity of Rule 6(1) of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (amended), making Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma) from Institutions recognized by the Government along with a certificate, a compulsory requirement to be eligible for appointment as Pharmacist in State Health Department.
Dismissing a series of writ petitions, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed that while graduate and post-graduate degrees in Pharmacy are higher qualification but when the minimum qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy has been fixed in the cadre rules, it cannot be tinkered with only on the ground of it not being sound or wise. The court thus held that criteria was neither arbitrary nor beyond the scope of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 or the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.
Case Title: The State of Bihar and Ors v. Dhirendra Kumar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 28
Patna High Court has set aside a July 2024 direction of a Single Judge, asking Bihar Public Service Commission to declare supplementary result for unfilled vacancies of Primary School Teachers for the 2023 recruitment drive.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy found that the remaining candidates though secured the cut-off marks, did not meet the eligibility criteria fixed by the Commission.
Case Title: Brij Nandan @ Siya Ram Yadav and Anr v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 29
The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the decision to change the site for the construction of a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Darbhanga district, holding that the petitioners had failed to show any personal legal injury or violation of a legal right.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Mohit Kumar Shah held that the petitioners had not shown how they were personally affected or what legal right of theirs had been violated by the change in site, and therefore could not maintain the petition.
Case Title: M/s JMD Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 30
The Patna High Court, while upholding the recovery of ₹8,62,566 as ineligible CENVAT credit, held that transitional credit under the GST regime cannot be availed for capital goods received after 1st July 2017.
The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya held, “The distinction in the matter of giving benefit of CENVAT credit on capital goods during the transitional period may be found in Section 140 of the CGST Act. While this provision enables an assessee to carry forward and take credit of unutilized CENVAT credit paid on inputs as well as on capital goods, in the manner as may be prescribed and subject to the conditions contained in the provisions, sub-section (5) of Section 140 makes a distinction between the capital goods and inputs. This provides that a registered person would be entitled to take credit of eligible duties and taxes in respect of inputs or input services received on or after the appointed date but the duty on tax in respect of which has been paid by the supplier under the existing law…”
Case Title: Ganesh Prasad Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 31
The Patna High Court has held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot invoke its powers under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to arrest an accused after cognizance has been taken by the Special Court, if the accused was not arrested during the course of investigation.
Justice Satyavrat Verma, presiding over the case, stated, “The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that ED during the course of investigation never felt the need of arresting the petitioner and after cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA based on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, the ED and its officers are powerless to exercise power under Section 19 of the PMLA to arrest a person shown as an accused in the complaint.”
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 32
While granting bail to a child alleged to be in conflict with law (CICL), the Patna High Court referred to Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to underscore that bail to a juvenile is a rule and refusal of bail is an exception.
In doing so Justice Jitendra Kumar held that bail to a juvenile in conflict with law can only be denied in certain circumstances including if on bail the juvenile person may come into contact with a known criminal, or if the juvenile may be exposed to physical, psychological danger. It thus reiterated that the purpose of the Act which is that children even if they get into some conflict must be reformed and not punished, as a punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society.
Case Title: M/S R.S Construction v. The Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 33
The Patna High Court in a recent judgment held that submitting a forged certificate in a public tender, even if the criminal investigation is pending, is a serious matter that jeopardises the trust of the Corporation. The Court further held that it is the duty of every Corporation to warn other departments regarding such persons.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed in its judgment, “Submitting of forged certificate leading to the registration of an FIR, even though the investigation with respect to the same is pending, is a serious matter which affects and jeopardizes the trust of the Corporation and it is the duty of every Corporation to warn the other counterparts regarding such persons.”
Case Title: Amit Anand v. Bihar Information Commission and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 34
While dismissing a petition filed by an individual seeking compensation for delayed information under the Right to Information Act 2005, the Patna High Court has reiterated that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act can only be granted when the applicant demonstrates actual loss or detriment suffered due to the delay in receiving the requested information.
Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma presiding over the case observed, “this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced/demonstrated the extent of loss or detriment suffered by him for award of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and apart from that, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 16.08.2019 by which the appeal of the petitioner was disposed of by the State Information Commission without awarding the compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
Case Title: Nitu Chandra v. The Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 35
While dismissing a petition filed by actress Nitu Chandra challenging the broadcast and online circulation of an allegedly vulgar song by singer Honey Singh, the Patna High Court has directed that such grievances must first be addressed through the statutory mechanism established under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed in its judgement, “Mr. Alok Kumar, the learned Advocate for the Central Government has drawn the attention of this Court to various provisions in the IT Act and the Ethics Code Rules, 2021 including the redressal mechanism provided therein for any party to approach the concerned authorities for the needful, i.e. for stoppage of broadcast of such vulgar songs.”
Patna High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Suspended Judge In Dowry Death Case, Orders CBI Probe
Case Title: Pratik Shail @ Pratik Sail v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 36
The Patna High Court declined to quash the criminal case filed against a suspended judicial officer in the cadre of Bihar Judicial Service regarding the alleged dowry death of his wife, observing that there exist prima facie materials pointing to the harassment and cruelty related to dowry demands.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri also ordered that the investigation in the case be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) citing the 'very technical nature' of the case.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 37
The Patna High Court quashed a service tax demand raised against a government contractor, ruling that merely not registering for service tax could not be equated with fraud or suppression of facts warranting the application of the five-year extended limitation period under the Finance Act, 1994.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, observed, “the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had not taken registration of the service tax would alone not be a reason to believe that he has committed a fraud or has wilfully suppressed his liability to pay the tax. Rule 4A casts a duty upon every person providing taxable service not later than thirty days from the date of completion of such taxable service whichever is earlier to issue an invoice, a bill or as the case may be a challan signed by such person or a person authorised by him in respect of such taxable service provided or agreed to be provided.”
Case Title: Ramesh Mahto and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 38
Noting the continued failure of the Employment Unit under the Panchayat Raj Bhorah, District Saran at Chapra to issue appointment letters to candidates selected for the post of Panchayat Teacher in 2009 despite multiple judicial directions, the Patna High Court has directed the District Education Officer and the District Programme Officer (Establishment) to collect service particulars from the Employment Unit and take appropriate action to comply with the appointment orders passed earlier by the District Appellate Authority and later modified by the State Appellate Authority.
Justice Purnendu Singh, presiding over the case, stated, “I have no alternative than to direct the District Education Officer and the District Programme Officer (Establishment) concerned to call for the service particulars relating to the petitioners from the Employment Unit and take appropriate action to comply with the order passed by the District Appellate Authority and as modified by the State Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.12.2020 which requires issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners.”
Case Title: Sarojani Educational Trust v. Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 39
In a plea seeking an inquiry against Birla Edutech Limited for allegedly commercializing education, the Patna High Court said that no blanket or fishing inquiry can be directed into all schools run under the franchisee Birla Open Minds without any specific material against it.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha observed that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) may initiate action only when specific material is brought to its notice indicating a violation of its affiliation bye-laws, particularly those governing financial transactions in the franchise process.
Case Title: Pushpa Devi v. The State of Bihar Patna and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 40
The Patna High Court has ruled that at the stage of framing charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to prove by direct evidence that the accused had intention or knowledge to cause death; instead, it is sufficient if the materials show either intention or knowledge, which can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, presiding over the case, observed, “At the, prima facie, stage of consideration of charge and even during trial, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove intention or knowledge of the accused by way of direct evidence, because intention and knowledge comes from culpable state of mind and there cannot be a direct evidence of such culpable intention. Intention can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances, from the nature of wound received by the victim, from the manner of assault inflicted by the accused, from the nature of weapon used etc.”
Customs Act Grants Unfettered Investigative Powers Where Infraction Is Suspected: Patna High Court
Case Title: Bishal Roadways v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 41
The Patna High Court has held in a recent judgement that the Customs Act, 1962 provides 'unfettered power' to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of its provisions.
Presiding over the case, Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, observed, “The investigation cannot be nipped in the bud and be prevented simply on the basis of certain technicalities. The Customs Act provides unfettered power to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of the provision of the Customs Act.”
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 42
Dismissing a letters patent appeal filed against an appellate court's order under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act pertaining to removal of the manager of a temple's deity and its property, the Patna High Court said that when the Act itself creates a bar on filing further appeal then the same cannot be “ignored” and must be strictly enforced.
A Division Bench of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha observed this after noting that Section 55(2) of the Act creates a bar on filing any further appeal against an order passed under Section 55 (1). For context, Section 55 (1) states that unless otherwise provided in the Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against every order passed by the District Judge under this Act. Section 55(2) thereafter states that “no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section.”
Case Title: M/s Sri Sai Food Grain and Iron Stors v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 43
The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition challenging a tax demand of ₹88,64,550.50, has observed that an inspection conducted under the BGST/CGST regime is legally unsustainable if not carried out in compliance with Section 67 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Presiding over the ruling, a Division Bench comprising Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, stated, “Section 67 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 specifically mandates an inspection to be conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that there shall be two witnesses when the inspection is conducted…The inspection report, therefore, does not contain the names and signatures of two independent witnesses which is the mandatory requirement of Section 67 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017…Clearly this appears to be an afterthought done with the motive to simply cover-up the lacuna…”
Case Title: Avanish Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 44
The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal moved by politician and former Bihar MLA Avanish Kumar Singh who claimed occupancy over a government bungalow despite resignation, observing that the moment he ceased to be an MLA he ought to have vacated the government quarter.
A division bench of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha held that the petitioner's continued occupation of Government Quarter despite the de-allotment of the quarter following his resignation was without authority.
Case Title: CTS Industries Limited v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 45
The Patna High Court has upheld a tax assessment order passed by the State GST Authority, clarifying that once a Proper Officer determines that input tax credit has been wrongfully availed or utilized due to fraud or suppression of facts, they are empowered to issue a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held, “According to sub-section (1), wherever it appears to the Proper Officer that there is any wrongful availment of input tax credit or where the input tax credit has been utilized by reason of fraud or any willful statement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made or who has wrongly availed or utilized input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with the interest payable thereon under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice.”
Case Title: Dr. Mamta Sinha v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 46
The Patna High Court has quashed all criminal proceedings against a female gynaecologist, in a long-pending medical negligence case dating back to 2003 whereby a railway employee alleged that his right kidney had been unlawfully removed during a surgery conducted at a private nursing home. The petitioner, Dr. Mamta Sinha, was accused solely on the basis of her presence in the operation theatre during a procedure performed by her husband, Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, for the treatment of chyluria.
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, presiding over the case, held, “The version of allegations as set out through complaint petition, nowhere suggests prima facie any cognizable offences as alleged for offences punishable U/s 307, 326, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC qua petitioner. Interestingly, no cognizance was taken for criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120-B of the IPC. Hence, this case also falls under the golden guideline nos. (1), (3) and (7) as settled through Bhajan Lal case (supra).”
Case Title: Siddartha Travels v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 47
The Patna High Court has recently upheld a service tax demand of ₹25.25 lakh against a travel agency, dismissing its defence that crucial business records had been lost in a fire.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed, “this petitioner having surrendered his service tax registration had not disclosed the transactions in ST-3. The Taxing Authority were not aware of this, they were looking for cooperation on the part of the petitioner, they called for relevant information and records during investigation but the petitioner did not provide those information to the Taxing Authority. In such circumstance, if the Taxing Authority has taken a view that it is a case of suppression and the facts which have surfaced during investigation were not earlier known to them and they would not have come to know it if the investigation would not have taken place, cannot be found fault with.”
Case Title: Amit Kumar & Ors. v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 48
The Patna High Court has directed District Magistrate of Purnea to post 22 contractual executive assistants, appointed under the Bihar Prashashanik Sudhar Mission (BPSM) whose services were stopped due to paucity of funds, in vacant posts in other departments of the state government.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri in his order found that the petitioners were "treated differently" from other similarly placed Executive Assistants, working in the district of Ara and Araria. In doing so the court upheld a 2019 notification as per which Executive Assistants were entitled to remain in service until 60 years of age or till the end of the scheme whichever is earlier. The court thus underscored that while the government is entitled to outsource people in government appointments however it has to ensure that outsourced employees are treated fairly and their rights are protected.
For Mere Unauthorised Absence, Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Too Harsh: Patna HC
Case Title: Deo Narayan Singh v. The Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 49
A single judge bench consisting of Justice Purnendu Singh quashed an order that imposed compulsory retirement on a CISF constable for allegedly misbehaving at work.
The court held that the punishment was disproportionate, and further directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose a lesser punishment. The court explained that a disproportionate penalty attracts Article 21 of the Constitution, and if the punishment is unreasonable, it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Awadh Kishore Sah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 50
The Patna High Court has recently observed that isolated lapses or moral failings on the part of a wife do not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).
Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, clarified that there is a difference between acts of adultery and “living in adultery.” He stated, “any physical relationship of a lady with any person prior to her marriage does not come within the definition of “adultery” because adultery is an offence against one's spouse. However, adulterous life of any wife subsequent to her marriage is undoubtedly a disqualification for any married wife to get maintenance from her husband. However, “Living in adultery” denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality.”
Case Title: The State of Bihar & Others v. Ghanshyam Jha & Others (along with The State of Bihar & Others v. Balram Pandey & Others)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 51
The Patna High Court has held that all teachers of private degree colleges in Bihar appointed prior to April 19, 2007 are entitled to receive salary grants from the State Government, irrespective of whether their colleges had been funded by deficit grants or performance-based grants.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy in its order said: “the teachers of all the affiliated degree colleges appointed prior to 19.04.2007 were covered by the Amending Act of 2015 and the distinction which was carved out by the State of limiting this benefit only for teachers of such degree colleges which were getting grant against performance of the students in such colleges, is not only illusory but iniquitous”
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 52
The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of a juvenile under the Arms Act, holding that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is based on the belief that children are the future of society and, if they go into conflict with law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and not punished.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “the J.J. Act, 2000 is based on our belief that children are the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society. Such belief and object are reflected in the preamble to the Act as well as its provisions.”
Case Title: Arun Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 53
A single judge bench consisting of Justice Harish Kumar held that for a former Adult Education Project Employee who was later absorbed into the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), retrenchment periods must be counted for pension calculation.
Relying on a 2013 Resolution of the Education Department, the court held that retrenchment period must be counted on a notional basis for pension benefits. Thus, the court directed the Accountant General to issue a fresh payment order, including the retrenchment period for pension calculation.
Case Title: Shio Jee Rai & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 54
The Patna High Court bench comprising of Justice Satyavrat Verma held that government employees retiring on 30th June are entitled to receive the annual increment due on 1st July, provided they have completed one full year of service since their last increment.
The High Court ruled that the benefit cannot be denied on mere technical grounds, such as retirement occurring just one day before the official increment date.
Assessee Is Permitted To Rectify GSTR 3B On Par With Contents Of GSTR 1: Patna High Court
Case Title: Om Traders v. Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 55
The Patna High Court stated that the assessee is permitted to rectify GSTR 3B on par with contents of GSTR 1.
The Division Bench of Justices P.B. Bajanthri and S.B. PD. Singh observed that in the government, there is no system of rectification of any return once it is filed. However, the assessee had submitted application to rectify GST 3B on par with the GSTR 1 relating to certain total taxable value, total integrated tax, total CGST, total SGST. He had committed error insofar as mentioning total taxable value while submitting GSTR 3B and it is not in accordance with the GSTR 1.
Case Title: Nitish Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 56
The Patna High Court quashed a complaint case filed against Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, which alleged that he insulted the National Anthem by standing in a 'Pranaam Mudra' with a smiling face during its rendition at an event related to the 'Sepak Takraw' World Cup.
A bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha noted that the CM's admitted conduct showed only high respect for the national anthem. The Court added that mere folding hand in 'Pranaam Mudra' in standing position and 'smiling face' cannot be construed to be an insult to the 'National Anthem'.
Case Title - Nityanand Roy @Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 57
The Patna High Court has observed that merely voicing an apprehension that in case the candidate of a particular party wins the election, it may create the base of ISIS (a militant outfit) in the area, cannot be said to be 'provocative' speech in terms of Section 153 IPC.
Holding thus, a bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha set aside an order of CJM, Araria, taking cognizance and issuing Summons to Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Nityanand Rai in connection with offences under Section 153 IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of People Act.
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 58
The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of a juvenile-in-conflict-with law for raping a minor girl, while simultaneously directing the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the survivor. The Juvenile Justice Board had convicted the juvenile in 2019 for rape and he was directed to be kept in a Special Home for two years; this was also upheld by the appellate court against which the juvenile moved the high court in appeal.
Further noting significant procedural lapses, lack of evidence, and non-consideration of the Social Investigation Report (SIR) submitted by the Probation Officer, Justice Jitendra Kumar in his order also emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules provide that while taking any decisions with reference to any juvenile in conflict with law, the "best interest of the juvenile" must be the "primary consideration". It noted that the SIR on the juvenile contains no criminal antecedent.
Case Title: Babul Khatoon & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 59
The Patna High Court has drawn a distinction between a wife 'committing adultery' from her 'living in adultery', for deciding her entitlement to maintenance.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “Living in adultery” denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality. One or two lapses from virtues would be acts of adultery but would be quite insufficient to show that the woman was “living in adultery”. A mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and a return back to a normal life can not be said to be living in adultery. If the lapse is continued and followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be “living in adultery.”
Case Title - Sangeeta Devi v. Pawan Kumar Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 60
The Patna High Court has observed that a marriage, when validated by custom, cohabitation, social acceptance, and the birth of children, must be treated as legally valid for the purposes of seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
A bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that disregarding such a union would not only be legally untenable but would also send a regressive message to society, undermining the dignity of women and the security of children born from such relationships.
Case Title: Abdul Rehan Khan @ Abdul Raihan Khan v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 61
The Patna High Court has held that non-appointment of Counsellors in the Family Courts resulting in cases not being sent in conciliation amounts to violation of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the Rules framed thereunder.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri said that where there is a violation of the Family Courts (Patna High Court) Rules, 2000, an adversarial justice process cannot be adopted.
Case Title: Robert Lakra & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 62
The Patna High Court has set aside the Bihar government's 2004 order cancelling a Khas Mahal lease directing resumption of possession of land along with multi-storey apartments constructed over it including initiation of eviction process of flat-owners, terming the action prima facie illegal.
In doing so, Justice Alok Kumar Sinha held that the State could not bypass the mandatory procedure under the Transfer of Property Act, by cancelling the 50-year lease granted in 1966 and evicting bona fide flat owners of Midway Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited.
Case Title: Amber Imam Hashmi v. State of Bihar and Anr & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 63
The Patna High Court rejected pleas by two Dharbhanga lawyers booked in a 1994 murder case who had challenged trial court's dismissal of their application seeking exemption from personal appearance in the case.
This, after Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha noted that one of them had continued to appear before the trial court in a separate case in a professional capacity. The high court thus remarked that the lawyers had “undermined the authority and sanctity of the judicial process”.
Case Title: Satyendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 64
The Patna High Court quashed the dismissal of a Bihar government officer accused of accepting a bribe, holding that the disciplinary proceedings leading to his termination were vitiated by serious procedural irregularities and a complete disregard for the principles of natural justice.
Justice Harish Kumar observed that while a corruption charge found by the disciplinary authority based upon the enquiry report cannot be interfered with much less on a misplaced sympathy; however any action by the State in this direction should be lawful.
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 65
The Patna High Court granted bail to a juvenile accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, observing that Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 does not provide any classification on grant of bail and the provision applies to all children-in-conflict with law without any discrimination.
Justice Jitendra Kumar further observed that the even juveniles who are above 16-years-old accused of committing a “heinous offence” are also entitled to bail.
Case Title: Navneet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 66
The Patna High Court held that Sessions Courts cannot ask accused seeking anticipatory bail to approach the police for relief under Section 41A of the CrPC/Section 35 BNSS. In doing so the court emphasized that the competent courts cannot shut their doors and refer the petitioners to go to other fora for protection of their liberty.
Justice Kumar thereafter observed that in view of Nausad Ansari case, an “impression” is doing the rounds among District Judiciary that in view of Section 41A Cr.PC/Section 35 BNSS anticipatory bail petitions are not required to be decided, if they are filed before sessions court, which is only required to refer the petitioners to the police for representation. The Court clarified that these provisions are not substitutes for one another but operate concurrently, each designed to safeguard liberty at different stages of the criminal process.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 67
The Patna High Court recently upheld a Family Court order directing a fruit seller husband to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as it noted that the said amount is 'absolutely a meagre' sum in today's time.
A bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri thus dismissed the husband's criminal revision petition while observing that it is not the actual income but the capacity of the husband to earn is the prime consideration while granting maintenance allowance in favour of the wife
Limitation To Claim GST Refund Begins From Date Of Correct Tax Payment: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Sai Steel v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 68
The Patna High Court held that limitation for GST refund in wrong head ceases computed from correct payment date.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Shailendra Singh after reading Section 77 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 19 of the IGST Act opined that the relevant date for counting the period of limitation would start from the date when the assessee had deposited the tax under IGST Act.
Mere Breathalyser Test Insufficient To Convict Under Bihar Liquor Ban Act: Patna High Court
Case Title: Manoj Murmu @Manoj Murmur v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 69
The Patna High Court has set aside a conviction under the Bihar Liquor Ban Act, stating that the breathalyser test is insufficient on its own without blood or urine evidence and pointing out flaws in the fair investigation.
Alok Kumar Pandey allowed an appeal, overturning a man's conviction of simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for allegedly consuming alcohol in violation of Bihar's strict prohibition law.
Case Title: M/s Premlata and Sons v. State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 70
The Patna High Court quashed two orders of the Bihar Government refusing to increase the stock quota of a licensed arms dealer, holding that the rejection was arbitrary, based on irrelevant grounds such as "celebratory firing".
Justice Alok Kumar Sinha allowed the writ petition filed by M/s Premlata & Sons, run by proprietor Smt. Prem Lata Pandey, who holds a valid arms trade license since 2005, but was denied increase in stock on the ground of alleged “celebratory firing,” without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (& Connected Writs)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 71
The Patna High Court directed the State to appoint 252 candidates as Sub-Inspectors in Bihar Police under a 2004 advertisement, holding that denying them appointment despite having higher marks than 133 already appointed candidates violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Justice Arvind Singh Chandel delivered the judgment while allowing three writ petitions filed by unsuccessful aspirants who had cleared both physical and written tests but were left out of the final list.
Case Title: State of Bihar & Others v. Dayanand Sinha & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 72
The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya has observed that Section 5, Limitation Act applies to revisions under Section 13, Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act, 2008 (“BPWCDA Act”), meaning thereby that delay in filing a challenge to awards passed under BPWCDA Act can be condoned by applying Section 5, Limitation Act.
Since there were conflicting opinions of the Patna High Court on the said point, the matter was sent or reference to a larger bench.
Case Title: Haresh Yadav v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 73
The Patna High Court overturned the conviction of a man, who was handed down a seven-year sentence by the Trial Court for attempt to murder relating to a 2003 house trespass incident.
Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was dealing with an appeal filed against a 2023 conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 307 (attempt to murder), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) of IPC and provisions of the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act (assault or use of force to any woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty).
Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 74
The Patna High Court recently criticised the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, calling them 'draconian', noting that they give the authorities 'unguided' and 'arbitrary' powers.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice PB Bajanthri and Justice SB PD Singh also pointed to a 'disturbing trend' in which houses could be sealed, seized, confiscated and even auctioned merely upon their involvement in any offence under the Act.
Case Title: Md Murshid Alam v. State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 75
The Patna High Court has ruled that a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) even after divorce, if her husband has not made a “reasonable and fair provision” for her future during the iddat period.
Justice Jitendra Kumar upheld a Family Court order directing a Muslim man to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month, dismissing his plea that their marriage had ended by mutual consent.
Case Title: Mangali Devi & Ors v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 76
The Patna High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 82 (Proclamation for person absconding) and 83 (Attachment of property of person absconding) CrPC (Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS) do not create an absolute bar on filing an anticipatory bail petition.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that, “the anticipatory bail petition of a Petitioner facing accusation is maintainable, even if the proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC/Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S, have been initiated against him. However, grant or rejection of anticipatory bail would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Unauthorized Possession Of Codeine-Based Cough Syrup Falls Under NDPS Act: Patna High Court
Case Title: Nilendra Kumar Karan v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 77
The Patna High Court has reiterated that bail under the NDPS Act remains a stringent exception, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of codeine-based cough syrup.
“Negation of bail is a rule and grant of it is an exception," held Justice Jitendra Kumar, reiterating that unauthorised possession of codeine-based cough syrup, even with less than 2.5% concentration, falls within the ambit of the NDPS Act when possessed in commercial quantity, and that bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is an exception rather than the rule.
Case Title: Ram Prasad Yadav v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 78
The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence imposed on Ram Prasad Yadav and his son Ajay Kumar Yadav under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the alleged kidnapping of the informant's son in 1999. The appeals (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2004 and No. 240 of 2004) were allowed, discharging the appellants from their bail bonds.
Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, in the judgment dated September 20, 2025, acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case Title: Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar v. State of Bihar (Along with connected petitions)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 79
Granting relief to five MBBS students facing permanent expulsion punishment for impersonation during examinations, the Patna High Court termed the action of the Patna's Aryabhatta Knowledge University against them as "unduly harsh" and "shockingly disproportionate".
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha underscored that while maintenance of academic discipline is of paramount importance, it must not be pursued to the total exclusion of the equally vital goal of affording students an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate. Observing that such extreme action amounts to inflicting "academic and professional death" upon young students, the Court added that the University administration had overlooked the students' potential to reform.
Case Title: Laxmi Devi v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 80
The Patna High Court has held that a complainant challenging an order summoning accused is an interlocutory order and a revision petition challenging such an order is barred under Section 438(2) BNSS.
Justice Jitendra Kumar held that such a summoning order with respect to the accused amounts to an intermediate order, which he can challenge in a revision plea and if it is set aside by the high court the whole proceeding before the lower court would get terminated.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 81
Observing that while wife's living need not be luxurious but she should not be left in 'discomfort', the Patna High Court on Tuesday dissolved a 15-year-old marriage between a Merchant Navy officer and his wife while directing the husband to pay ₹90 lakh as permanent alimony.
A Bench of Chief Justice PB Bajanthri and Justice SB PD Singh added that it is the duty of the Court to see that the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in 'penury'.
Case Title : Union of India & Ors. v. Vishwa Mohan Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 82
A Division bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma held that promotion takes effect only from actual promotion date or DPC approval and not retrospectively from date of current duty charge.
Case Title: Sweta Suman v. ECI and Others and Rakesh Kumar Singh v.ECI & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 83
The Patna High Court has refused to entertain two writ petitions filed challenging the rejection of nomination of two candidates belonging to Rashtriya Janata Dal and Lok Janshakti Party respectively in the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly Polls, scheduled on November 06 and 11.r
Justice A Abhishek Reddy cited the specific bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and availability of alternate remedies to the candidates.
Case Title: Rit Lal Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 84
Rejecting the plea of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MLA Ritlal Yadav seeking interim bail to campaign for himself during the ongoing Bihar Assembly elections, the Patna High Court observed that a candidate's right to canvass and campaign is not a fundamental right, but only a statutory right on which restriction can be imposed by statutes.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha noted that Yadav is having antecedent of a number of cases and he has been suffering incarceration in two cases and had ample time to seek bail in those cases or to make the same prayer before the court concerned for his release on interim bail.
Case Title: Pushpraj Bajaj v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 85
The Patna High Court held that the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is mandatory, emphasizing that a pre-cognizance hearing constitutes an essential procedural safeguard for the accused. The Court further observed that any opportunity granted to the accused during the summoning stage cannot cure the defect arising from non-compliance with this requirement.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Special PMLA Court that had taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
Case Title: Tirpurari Kumar Tiwari @ Manish Kashyap v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 86
The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to YouTuber Manish Kashyap in connection with an FIR accusing him of publishing a video on 'X' of stones allegedly inserted between fish-plates on a railway track to tarnish the image of the Indian Railway.
A bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha granted him the relief, noting that he had posted the video as it is, after receiving it from social media, for the information of the Ministry of Railway.
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 87
The Patna High Court recently awarded compensation of ₹2 lakh to an accused who was illegally detained for six days despite a court order granting him bail.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey directed the State to compensate the petitioner, who had been in custody for an alleged violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Prosecution Must Prove Victim's Age U/S 94 Juvenile Justice Act For POCSO To Apply: Patna High Court
Case Title: XXX v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 88
The Patna High Court recently held that in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the age of the victim must be conclusively established either through school records or medical evidence, as required under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Justice Alok Kumar Pandey made these observations while hearing a criminal appeal arising from an acquittal order passed by the Trial Court, which had acquitted the accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Manjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 89
The Patna High Court held that 'public interest' under Rule 12A(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 cannot be given a rigid meaning and must be construed in light of the statutory scheme. The Court clarified that the quantity of liquor alone cannot justify refusal to release a confiscated vehicle, and that the competent authority must consider several relevant factors before denying such release.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey made these observations while hearing a petition challenging the order of the Commissioner (Excise), Bihar, who had refused to interfere with a confiscation order passed against the petitioner's Scorpio vehicle.
Case Title: Vivek Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 90
The Patna High Court reaffirmed that allegations of desertion cannot defeat a wife's claim of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless the allegations are conclusively established in matrimonial proceedings.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha, while dismissing the husband's plea, held that allegations of desertion cannot defeat a claim under Section 125 CrPC unless conclusively established in matrimonial proceedings.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 91
The Patna High Court has ruled in favor of a government employee who was terminated in 1995, directing the state to pay full back wages upon his reinstatement.
A bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, held that the petitioner is entitled to full back wages from April 26, 1995, to April 2, 2011. And directed the respondents to pay arrears of salary within 3 months from receipt of the order.
Pendency Of Multiple Cases Does Not Make Juvenile Incorrigible For Reform: Patna High Court
Case Title: Banti Kumar @ Aryan Raj v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 92
The Patna High Court recently ruled that the mere pendency of cases is insufficient to label a juvenile as incorrigible or unfit for reformation.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha made these remarks when hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the trial court, which had affirmed the Juvenile Justice Board's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner.
'Mere' Incarceration Of Two And A Half Years Not Grounds For Bail Under UAPA: Patna High Court
Case Title: Anwar Rashid v. Union Bank of India through the National Investigation Agency, Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 93
The Patna High Court recently held that cases involving threats to national security and public safety cannot be equated with ordinary criminal matters, and that “mere incarceration” of two and a half years cannot entitle an accused to bail where national security concerns are involved.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey made these observations while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of the Prime Minister to Patna.
Case Title: Karnal Kumar v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 94
The Patna High Court held that while section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars jurisdiction of the Special Exercise Court to release seized vehicles used to commit the offence, the bar doesn't oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha set aside the trial court's order and directed the immediate release of the petitioner's motorcycle to its registered owner, subject to conditions imposed by the concerned court.
'External Rubbing' Does Not Constitute Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Patna High Court
Case Title: Jai Krishna Yadav v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 95
The Patna High Court has recently clarified that “external rubbing” does not fall within the statutory definition of penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”). The Court further held that in cases where medical evidence negates the possibility of penetration, a conviction cannot rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness.
A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey made these observations while hearing an appeal arising from the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Case Title: The State of Bihar and Ors v. Satya Narayan Ram and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 96
The Patna High Court has confirmed that Vigilance Bureau staff are entitled to retrospective parity in additional salary benefits, bringing them in line with other Bihar Police units.
The matter was decided by the bench of ACJ Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma. It held that Vigilance Bureau personnel are entitled to one month's additional salary for 2015–16 and 2016–17, since they deserve the same treatment as other police units from 27.08.2015.
Case Title: Md. Hasib v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 97
The Patna High Court has recently observed that the failure to examine the first Investigating Officer in a criminal case is not fatal to the prosecution's case if the place of occurrence of the incident can be proved through other evidence.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey held this while hearing an appeal against conviction under Section 304B of the IPC and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. Eventually, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Bhola Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 98
The Patna High Court recently observed that there is no concept of 'deemed guilt' in service law jurisprudence, and set aside the punishment imposed on a police officer.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by a police officer who had been punished with stoppage of salary increments for two years. The case emanated from the seizure of approximately 4767.22 litres of illicit liquor from the vicinity of the Sursand Police Station in the District of Sitamarhi, carried out by the Excise Department. The High Court eventually set aside the punishment proceedings against him.
Specific Relief Act Has No Application To Proceedings Under Family Courts Act: Patna High Court
Case Title: Anjani Kumar @ Pappu Kumar v. Mamta Bharti and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 99
The Patna High Court held that the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has no application to proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984, in view of the overriding effect of Section 20 of the latter statute.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Justice Anshuman made these observations while hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, in which the Family Court had declared the marriage between the parties null and void.
Case Title: M/S ACC Limited v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 100
In a ruling on sales tax valuation under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, the Patna High Court held that packing materials used for cement, such as gunny bags and HDPE bags, form an integral part of cement sales and cannot be subjected to separate tax rates distinct from the cement itself.
The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman dismissed a batch of miscellaneous appeals filed by ACC Limited. The appeals pertained to multiple assessment years ranging from 1996-97 to 2000-01.
Case Title: Princekant Kumar @Prinskant Kumar v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 101
The Patna High Court observed that where illicit liquor is recovered from the person of a co-accused and not from any part of the vehicle, the motorcycle cannot be said to have been used in the commission of an offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Consequently, the statutory presumption under Section 32 of the Act against the owner of the vehicle does not arise unless the prosecution is able to establish that the vehicle itself was used in the commission of the alleged offence.
A Single Judge Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Justice Jitendra Kumar, was hearing an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, who was apprehending arrest in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Court held that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner under the Excise Act and, accordingly, allowed the application for anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Rajnandani Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 102
The Patna High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in restoring an addition of ₹1.91 crore under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act after reversing a reasoned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), where the assessee had produced documentary evidence and the Assessing Officer's remand report did not disclose any adverse material.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman held that the Tribunal interfered with the appellate order without demonstrating perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard, and in doing so, effectively placed a burden on the assessee beyond what is contemplated under Section 68 of the Act.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 103
The Patna High Court directed the Economic Offences Unit (EOU) to register an FIR into the affairs of the Excise Department, Muzaffarpur, in connection with the arbitrary auctioning of seized vehicles.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey was hearing a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the auction sale of a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle, or in the alternative, to grant compensation of ₹12 lakh, being the insured value of the vehicle. The Court ultimately held in favour of the petitioner and awarded compensation of ₹12,12,517, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Case Title: Aashik Kumar Sah v. State of Bihar and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 104
The Patna High Court has clarified that a Sessions Court having jurisdiction to decide an anticipatory bail application is duty-bound to adjudicate the same on merits by either allowing or rejecting it, and cannot dispose of such an application without doing either. The Court further clarified that there is no statutory bar on entertaining anticipatory bail applications merely because the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more.
These observations were made by a Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Jitendra Kumar while hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order of the trial court by which anticipatory bail had been denied to the petitioner. Upon considering the merits of the case, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court further directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to circulate a copy of the order to all judicial officers across the district judiciary in Bihar.