Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 1 - 92]Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 1Alok Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 2Sikandar Ajam v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 3Md. Jahid (Minor) vs State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 4Ankit Harsh v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 5Manoj Kumar Sudhanshu v. State of...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 1 - 92]
Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 1
Alok Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 2
Sikandar Ajam v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 3
Md. Jahid (Minor) vs State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 4
Ankit Harsh v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 5
Manoj Kumar Sudhanshu v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 6
Dr Shyam Kumar Satyapal and Ors v The National Medical Commission and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 7
Manju Devi and Ors v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 8
Mr. S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 9
State of Bihar v. Aman Singh and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 10
XXX v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 11
SANTOSH KUMAR SUMAN @ SANTOSH MANJHI v/s The State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 12
Md. Pappu @ Md. Saba Uddin v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 13
Rajeev Ranjan and Others v. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 14
Md. Hasmuddeen Ali v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 15
Md. Rizvi @ Raja v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 16
Lallan Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 17
Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 18
Binod Kumar Mishra v. Indian Oil Corporation and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 19
Md. Sultan and Anr v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 20
Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 21
National Highways Authority of India v. Syed Mohammad Masood Jawed 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 22
Deepak Kumar @ Sunny and Anr v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 23
The Patna High Court through its Registrar General and Ors v. Chandan Kumar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 24
Vikas Kumar (NH-30–Ara–Mohania Pkg–I & II) v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 25
State of Bihar v. Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 26
Tilakhdhari Yadav v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 27
Prashant Rajak v. Union of India and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 28
Monu Kumar and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 29
Anil Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 30
Kaushal Kishore v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 31
Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar (And Tagged Matters) 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 32
Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 33
State of Bihar and Anr v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 34
Manoj Kumar @ Munna v. Nita Bharti 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 35
State of Bihar and Ors v. Bhagwan Singh 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 36
State of Bihar and Ors v. Deepak Kumar alias Deepak Kumar Singh 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 37
Gopal Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 38
Gopal Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 39
Gopal Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 40
Vijay Kumar v/s The State of Bihar and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 41
Raj Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 42
M/s Mavin Switchgears and Control Pvt. Ltd v. State of Bihar and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 43
State of Bihar and Ors v. M/s Kumar and Kumar through Its Proprietor Raj Kumar Gupta and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 44
Rishav Utilities Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 45
The C.B.T./Board of Trustees (Central Board), Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Anr v. M/s The Longia Bidi Company, Barahdari 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 46
State of Bihar and Ors v. Uday Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 47
Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 48
Ram Dulari Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 49
Rai Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 50
Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 51
M/s Tirupati Storage and Allied Pvt. Ltd. v. UCO Bank, Frazer Road Branch, Patna 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 52
Ganesh Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 53
State of Bihar and Ors v. Amitabh Kumar Gupta and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 54
Md. Khurshid @ Md. Khurshid Rayeen v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 55
Manoj Prasad v. State Election Commission (Panchayat) and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 56
Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 57
Kumari Vagisha v. Kumar Sangam 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 58
Ajai Kumar @ Ajay Kumar v. Smt. Poonam Sinha and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 59
Ramesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 60
Seema Kumari v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 61
State of Bihar and Ors v. Suresh Sah 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 62
M/s Imperial Private Industrial Training Institute v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 63
State of Bihar and Ors v. Manoj Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 64
Sanjay Bhagat v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 65
Rajeev Singh @ Rajeev Kumar v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 66
Shyama Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 67
Shyam Bihari Mishra v. Sanju Devi 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 68
Jai Hanuman Enterprises v. State of Bihar and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 69
M/S Trijal Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 70
Siya Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 71
Aarpee Infra Projects (P) Ltd. v. The State of Bihar Public Health and Engineering Department 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 72
Dinbandhu Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 73
Jagarnath Thakur v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 74
Ankit Kumar Sharma and Ors v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 75
Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 76
Ram Pukar Singh v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 77
Dr. Ranganathan Rajya Pustakalaya Samiti & Anr v. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 78
Sanjay Kumar and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 79
Pitamber Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 80
Ritesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 81
Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 82
Plas Radha Int Udyog Village v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 83
Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited v. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL), Patna 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 84
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Sah v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 85
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal v. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 86
Prusottam Swaroop v. Umesh Kumar Sahu 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 87
The Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 88
M/s UKS-Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 89
Ravi Kumar Prajapati @ Ravi Prajapati v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 90
XXX (Name Withheld) v. State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 91
Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur & Ors. v. Madhusudan Prasad Tanti 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 92
Judgements and Orders
Case Title: Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 1
The Patna High Court has upheld the conviction of a Tax Assistant for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹600 for processing an income tax refund, confirming the sentence imposed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The single bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey noted that it is crystal clear that the place of occurrence is the Income Tax Office, Sasaram, where the complainant has alleged that demand was being made and on the point of demand, the occurrence is corroborated by P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 and the recovery was also admitted by other witnesses and all the prosecution-witnesses have supported and corroborated the core points of prosecution-story.
Case Title: Alok Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 2
The Patna High Court has relaxed an excessive penalty of 90% of Insurance Declared Value (IDV) to 10% on a motorcycle seized in a liquor-related offence.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held that, considering the quantum of liquor (18 litres), applying Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, which prescribes 10% of the insured value as the minimum penalty.
Case Title: Sikandar Ajam v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 3
The Patna High Court has slashed a 50 percent penalty imposed for releasing a rental car seized with nearly 318 litres of liquor. It ordered that the vehicle be released on payment of 30 percent of its insured value and struck down an additional 3 per cent charge as illegal.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey noted that the vehicle owner was not an accused in the case and said the confiscation orders needed correction.
Case Title: Md. Jahid (Minor) vs State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 4
The Patna High Court last week awarded a compensation of ₹5,00,000/- to a juvenile who was unlawfully arrested by the Bihar Police. The Court termed the act as a gross violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ritesh Kumar noted that the arrest was made in complete disregard of the established procedure of law, merely on the dictates of a Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), despite the fact that the juvenile had been previously exonerated in the chargesheet.
Case Title: Ankit Harsh v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 5
The Patna High Court has refused to entertain a plea seeking re-examination of NEET (UG) 2025 at Bapu Pariksha Parisar, Patna, on allegations of mismanagement and loss of examination time.
A Single Judge Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justice Harish Kumar was hearing the writ petition filed by a NEET UG candidate, limited to the extent of seeking a re-test only for the particular centre where he appeared for the examination held on 04.05.2025.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Sudhanshu v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 6
The Patna High Court has held that a major punishment and a minor punishment cannot be “packaged” into a single composite order and imposed simultaneously.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police challenging the punishment order by which he was visited with the penalty of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, along with prohibition on promotion for five years from the due date of promotion.
Case Title: Dr Shyam Kumar Satyapal and Ors v The National Medical Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 7
In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court has upheld the requirement of Aadhaar-based facial authentication and GPS location sharing for marking attendance of faculty members in medical colleges in Bihar.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri was hearing a writ petition challenging a public notice directing mandatory implementation of face-based Aadhaar authentication and GPS-enabled attendance across medical colleges and institutions in the State.
Case Title: Manju Devi and Ors v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 8
The Patna High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute and held that in the absence of shared residence or meaningful interaction, allegations of cruelty against the in-laws become inherently improbable.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra was hearing a petition challenging an order of the trial court taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, who were relatives of the husband, had subjected the complainant to cruelty, including caste-based abuse and physical assault.
Case Title: Mr. S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 9
The Patna High Court has held that an Executive Officer in the Patna Municipal Corporation would be covered under the ambit of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, while deciding mutation proceedings.
The Court clarified that any person who is legally empowered, in the course of legal proceedings, to render a definitive and determinative judgment would be regarded as a 'Judge' for the purposes of the 1985 Act.
Case Title: State of Bihar v. Aman Singh and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 10
The Patna High Court recently upheld the conviction and death sentence awarded to two accused persons for the murder of three people in connection with a land dispute. Invoking the theme of the great epic Mahabharata, one of the judges stressed that the aggressors should be punished for their sin/crime.
A Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey was hearing a reference under Section 366(1) CrPC, in which the accused had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to death for the brutal killing of their uncle and two cousins.
Section 372 CrPC | Victim's Appeal For Enhancement Of Sentence Is Not Maintainable: Patna High Court
Case Title: XXX v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 11
The Patna High Court held that a victim cannot maintain a criminal appeal solely on the ground that the sentence awarded is inadequate. It clarified that the victim's right of appeal under Section 372 CrPC is limited to only three contingencies: (i) acquittal of the accused, (ii) conviction for a lesser offence, or (iii) imposition of inadequate compensation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the victim (Appellant) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIth cum Special Judge (POCSO), Patna.
Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR SUMAN @ SANTOSH MANJHI v/s The State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 12
The Patna High Court granted relief to cabinet minister of Minor Water Resources in Bihar Government–Santosh Manjhi in connection with an FIR concerning a 2017 road blockade and protest in Bodh Gaya wherein a police official was assaulted and a woman was allegedly eve-teased.
Manjhi, the son of Union Minister of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and former Chief Minister Jitin Manjhi, had moved the high court challenging a 2021 order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya taking cognizance of various offences including Sections 147(Punishment for rioting), 148(rioting with deadly weapon), 149(unlawful assembly), 188(Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 341(wrongful restraint), 323(voluntarily causing hurt), 338(grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 354(B)(Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 363(kidnapping), 427(mischief), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) IPC, Bihar Police Act and Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act.
Case Title: Md. Pappu @ Md. Saba Uddin v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 13
The Patna High Court has described Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a “forgotten provision” and observed that the time has come to sensitise the police to ensure medical examination of the accused in sexual offence cases is conducted immediately after arrest, failing which vital gaps are left in the investigation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Ansul was hearing a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, in which the appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Case Title: Rajeev Ranjan and Others v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 14
The Patna High Court has held that recruitment to posts reserved for persons with disabilities must strictly conform to the statutory scheme prescribed under Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and that executive resolutions or recruitment notifications which are inconsistent with the Act cannot create any enforceable right in favour of candidates.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri was hearing a batch of writ petitions involving a common issue relating to selection to the posts of Junior Engineer, particularly with respect to horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities and the manner in which unfilled vacancies within the PwD category were dealt with. The petitions arose out of recruitment initiated by the Bihar Technical Service Commission for 6,379 posts of Junior Engineer pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2019.
Case Title: Md. Hasmuddeen Ali v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 15
The Patna High Court has held that where the owner of a vehicle is not involved in the commission of the offence of transportation of illicit liquor, and there is no consent or connivance attributable to the owner, the vehicle cannot be subjected to confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
A Division Bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in an excise case, by which the petitioner's motorcycle had been confiscated and put up for auction.
Patna High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Abusing PM Modi, His Mother At Political Rally
Case Title: Md. Rizvi @ Raja v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 16
The Patna High Court has granted bail to a man accused of using objectionable words against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his deceased mother during a political rally, which was later allegedly made viral on social media.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing the bail application filed in connection with Simri P.S. Case No. 243 of 2025 dated 28.08.2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 196, 296, 152, 353(2), 352, 356(1), 356(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Lallan Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 17
The Patna High Court has held that failure to challenge an order of arrest or remand before the appropriate court amounts to acquiescence, and a person cannot subsequently claim compensation alleging illegal detention.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a writ petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner's detention by Sonepur Police Station from 30.07.2020 to 01.08.2020 was illegal, along with a claim for compensation.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 18
The Patna High Court has held that the brother of a deceased person qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is entitled to be heard in criminal proceedings arising out of the offence.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman was hearing an intervention application filed by the brother of a deceased woman, seeking to be impleaded as a party respondent in an appeal filed by the convict-husband against his conviction.
Case Title: Binod Kumar Mishra v. Indian Oil Corporation and Others.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 19
The Patna High Court has held that mere pendency of a criminal case, at a stage where charges had not been framed, does not ipso facto render a candidate ineligible for allotment of a petroleum dealership unless the governing advertisement expressly stipulates such disqualification. The Court further held that the advertisement is the governing instrument of the selection process and cannot be enlarged or modified by the application form, and that equitable considerations arising from delay and substantial investments also weighed against interference.
A Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Binod Kumar Mishra against the judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed in CWJC No. 12241 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition challenging the selection of Respondent No. 10 for an SKO/LDO dealership at Brahmpur, District Buxar, pursuant to an advertisement issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). The selection process, which initially placed Respondent No. 10 at Serial No. 1 and the appellant at Serial No. 2, had earlier been reconsidered pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, following which Respondent No. 10 was again placed first in the select list dated 25.07.2008.
Case Title: Md. Sultan and Anr v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 20
The Patna High Court has held that remission schemes serve an important reformative purpose and act as a healthy motivation for prisoners to maintain good behaviour. It accordingly directed the Bihar State Sentence Remission Review Board to reconsider the remission applications of two convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for abducting children for extortion.
Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the State Sentence Remission Board, Bihar, rejecting the petitioners' plea for remission.
Case Title: Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 21
The Patna High Court has issued directions for the creation of a toll-free helpline to assist persons suffering from mental health issues, while hearing a suo motu public interest litigation concerning the condition of mental health facilities in Bihar. The Court also directed the State to consider suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae in the matter.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing the case initiated pursuant to an inspection report dated 17.02.2026 submitted by the Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA), highlighting deficiencies in mental healthcare infrastructure across the State, including at the Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS), Koilwar.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Syed Mohammad Masood Jawed
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 22
The Patna High Court set aside the injunction granted by the Waqf Tribunal restraining NHAI from highway construction, holding that the National Highways Act is a complete code in itself for the purpose of acquisition of land for the national highways
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri was hearing an appeal under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 read with the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and Section 151 CPC, challenging the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Bihar State Waqf Tribunal, Patna in Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2022, whereby the Tribunal restrained NHAI from carrying out construction of a national highway over certain plots recorded as Kabristan and Masjid in Samastipur district.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar @ Sunny and Anr v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 23
The Patna High Court set aside the conviction under Sections 366A and 376D IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, holding that material contradictions between the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement and her deposition, absence of medical evidence, and lack of independent corroboration rendered the prosecution case unreliable. The Court held that conviction cannot be sustained on such inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhari and Justice Dr. Anshuman was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 03.05.2018 and order of sentence dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aurangabad in GR Case No. 864 of 2015 arising out of Amba P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015.
Case Title: The Patna High Court through its Registrar General and Ors v. Chandan Kumar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 24
The Patna High Court has held that candidates who fail to assert their rights within the subsistence of a select panel cannot later seek parity with others who approached the Court in time, reiterating that writ relief is barred by delay and laches and that Article 14 does not permit extension of benefits on the basis of “negative equality.”
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal assailing the judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by a Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10521 of 2022. The Single Judge had directed the authorities to consider the respondent's case for appointment as Clerk in Bihar Civil Courts by extending to him the benefit granted to similarly situated candidates.
Case Title: Vikas Kumar (NH-30–Ara–Mohania Pkg–I & II) v. Union of India.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 25
The Patna High Court has reiterated that overloaded vehicles cannot be permitted to ply on roads and highways without removal of excess load, holding that mere imposition of fines is insufficient and strict enforcement of statutory mandates is necessary to prevent damage to infrastructure.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing the matter concerning regulation of overloaded vehicles on national highways in Bihar.
Case Title: State of Bihar v. Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 26
In a 176-page judgment, the Patna High Court set aside the conviction of multiple accused in the Ara Civil Court bomb blast case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and reiterating that “suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.”
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad was dealing with a Death Reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. (now Section 407 BNSS), along with connected criminal appeals, arising from a trial conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara. The trial court had convicted several accused under various provisions of the IPC and the Explosive Substances Act, awarding life imprisonment to most and death sentence to one accused.
Case Title: Tilakhdhari Yadav v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 27
The Patna High Court has acquitted a man convicted under the NDPS Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove recovery of contraband in accordance with law and that non-compliance with mandatory safeguards, coupled with evidentiary gaps, vitiated the conviction.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a criminal appeal against the judgment dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 3rd, Ara, Bhojpur in N.D.P.S. Case No. 2 of 1998, arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 7 of 1998. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹20,000.
Case Title: Prashant Rajak v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 28
The Patna High Court has expressed concern over the increasing number of petitions seeking correction of date of birth in Aadhaar records, observing that citizens are being unnecessarily forced to approach the Court despite fulfilling statutory requirements.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking correction of his date of birth in his Aadhaar card from 24.07.2008 to 24.07.2007 in accordance with his matriculation certificate.
Case Title: Monu Kumar and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 29
The Patna High Court has held that the sealed cover procedure cannot be invoked merely on the basis of pendency of an FIR, reiterating that denial of appointment on the basis of untested allegations violates settled constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha was hearing a writ petition filed by candidates who had applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 22/2024 dated 07.02.2024 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) for appointment of teachers in Elementary and Middle Schools.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 30
The Patna High Court has held that criminal proceedings initiated against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC are void ab initio, reiterating that such protection is essential to ensure fearless discharge of official duties.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the S.D.J.M., Banka in Complaint Case No. C-711 of 2008, whereby summons had been issued against the petitioner.
Cancellation Of Tender On Grounds Waived By Bidder Is Manifestly Arbitrary: Patna High Court
Case Title: Kaushal Kishore v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 31
The Patna High Court has held that cancellation of a tender process on a factually incorrect and non-existent ground is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14, setting aside the decision to re-tender despite the petitioner being declared L-1.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the decision dated 15.09.2025 of the Tender Committee cancelling the tender process under the Rural Road Strengthening and Management Program (RRSMP) and directing re-tendering.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar (And Tagged Matters).
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 32
The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of several accused in a murder case, strongly criticising the trial court for relying on inadmissible evidence and observing that the trial judge “does not have any idea about the relevancy, admissibility, and acceptance of evidence in a criminal trial.”
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing a batch of criminal appeals challenging the judgment of conviction dated 22 July 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 33
The Patna High Court has observed that police authorities are “invariably misusing” the provisions of the NDPS Act in cases involving cough syrups containing permissible levels of codeine, holding that such cases ought to fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey was hearing a bail application filed in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 218 of 2025, initially registered under Section 30(f) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and later converted into offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: State of Bihar and Anr v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 34
The Patna High Court has held that once parties agree before a Single Judge that an issue is concluded by binding precedent, they cannot subsequently re-agitate the same in an intra-court appeal, reiterating that statements recorded in a judgment are binding on the parties.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 14725 of 2023.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar @ Munna v. Nita Bharti.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 35
The Patna High Court has strongly criticised a Family Court's interpretation of the Special Marriage Act as “perverse”, and in a significant development, invoked the doctrine of frustration to dissolve a marriage, holding that courts must recognise reality where continuation of marital obligations has become impossible.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing an appeal against the judgment dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, which had dismissed a divorce petition on the ground that the marriage was “void ab initio”.
Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Bhagwan Singh.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 36
The Patna High Court has held that the Supreme Court in the case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani -Vs- State of Maharashtra(1971) did not hold that a breath analyser test is inconclusive proof of alcohol consumption.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar held that the SC judgment did not lay down any proposition that the Breath Analyser Report is not the conclusive proof of consuming liquor by a person.
Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Deepak Kumar alias Deepak Kumar Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 37
The Patna High Court has held that transfer and posting of a government servant lies within the exclusive domain of the executive, setting aside a Single Judge's direction to transfer a Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) during pendency of proceedings.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the State challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 5456 of 2020.
Case Title: Gopal Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 38
The Patna High Court has held that only subsisting and enforceable obligations can be treated as “existing commitments” for purposes of tender disclosure requirements, setting aside the disqualification of a bidder for alleged non-disclosure of a work which had already been proposed to be dropped by the department.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee disqualifying the petitioner from the technical bid stage under a tender floated by the Rural Works Department for construction and six-year operation and maintenance of a rural road/bridge project under the Sulabh Samparakta Yojana.
Case Title: Gopal Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 39
The Patna High Court has held that mandatory conditions stipulated in tender documents cannot be overlooked or relaxed by authorities while determining technical qualification of bidders, setting aside the technical qualification and L-1 declaration of a bidder who failed to furnish a mandatory payment certificate.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the revised technical bid decision of the Rural Works Department whereby respondent no. 8 was declared technically qualified in relation to NIT No. RRSMP-11/2025-26 (Package No. Madhepura/05).
Case Title: Gopal Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 40
The Patna High Court has held that proceedings under Section 107 CrPC can be initiated only where there are allegations of overt acts likely to lead to breach of public peace affecting the public at large, and not merely because some individuals claim to be living under fear due to threats.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 107 CrPC against the petitioner in Case No. 437 of 2021.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar v/s The State of Bihar and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 41
The Patna High Court suspended the sentence of three men convicted under the NDPS Act, after noting that the substances that were seized from them appeared to be Phenothiazine and Promethazine which did not come within the ambit of any narcotic drug and psychotropic substances.
The three appellants had approached the high court seeking suspension of sentence of trial court order which had convicted under Section 21(c) (punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations) NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 15 years with fine of Rs.1,50,000.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 42
The Patna High Court has reiterated that mere filing of representations does not extend limitation, holding that courts will not entertain belated claims where a litigant has approached after inordinate delay, and dismissed an intra-court appeal seeking regularisation of service.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge, which had disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority.
Case Title: M/s Mavin Switchgears and Control Pvt. Ltd v. State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 43
The Patna High Court has held that debarment of a bidder, which entails serious civil consequences, must be founded on an express provision in the tender conditions or applicable statutory framework, setting aside a three-year debarment imposed on a contractor.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma was hearing a writ petition challenging the Office Order dated 15.10.2025 issued by the Bihar State Power Transmission Company Limited (BSPTCL), whereby the Notification of Award (NOA) granted to the petitioner was cancelled, Earnest Money Deposit was forfeited, and the petitioner was debarred from participating in future tenders for a period of three years.
Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. M/s Kumar and Kumar through Its Proprietor Raj Kumar Gupta and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 44
The Patna High Court has held that mere filing of repeated representations cannot cure delay or extend limitation, and that once a tender period lapses without extension, the contract stands naturally terminated, allowing the State to issue a fresh tender in public interest.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State challenging the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge, which had set aside cancellation of an earlier tender and the issuance of a fresh tender.
Case Title: Rishav Utilities Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 45
The Patna High Court has held that blacklisting a contractor without furnishing the documents forming the basis of allegations violates principles of natural justice, setting aside a two-year debarment imposed by the State authorities.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the order dated 10.12.2025 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, whereby the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of two years under Clause 11 of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007.
Case Title: The C.B.T./Board of Trustees (Central Board), Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Anr v. M/s The Longia Bidi Company, Barahdari.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 46
The Patna High Court has held that authorities cannot retain money deposited by an assessee after the assessment itself has been set aside, and must compensate the party by paying interest, invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6784 of 2023.
Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Uday Kumar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 47
The Patna High Court has held that in cases of delayed claims, relief relating to arrears must ordinarily be restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition, modifying a Single Judge's direction granting interest on salary dues for a much longer period.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar challenging the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12983 of 2022.
Case Title: Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 48
The Patna High Court has reiterated that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate financial relief and cannot be claimed after a prolonged lapse of time, dismissing an intra-court appeal filed nearly 25 years after the employee went missing.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dated 02.09.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6835 of 2017.
Case Title: Ram Dulari Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 49
The Patna High Court has held that selection or engagement to the post of Anganwadi Sevika under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme does not confer any enforceable statutory right, and disputes relating to such selection ordinarily do not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging the judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10524 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
Case Title: Rai Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 50
The Patna High Court has held that a show cause notice initiating blacklisting proceedings cannot ordinarily be challenged under Article 226, reiterating that the authority empowered to take a final decision is equally competent to initiate the process.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 17.03.2026 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Registering Authority proposing blacklisting of the petitioner for alleged furnishing of incorrect information in a tender process.
Case Title: Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 51
The Patna High Court has emphasised that the State must ensure proper rehabilitation of cured mental health patients, observing that failure to provide adequate post-treatment support risks converting mental health institutions into spaces of detention, in violation of Article 21.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a suo motu writ petition concerning conditions and rehabilitation of persons with mental health challenges. At the outset, the Court underscored the constitutional dimension of the issue.
Case Title: M/s Tirupati Storage and Allied Pvt. Ltd. v. UCO Bank, Frazer Road Branch, Patna.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 52
The Patna High Court has held that dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is procedural in nature and does not extinguish the statutory right of appeal, affirming the power of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) to recall such orders.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge, which had set aside the DRAT's order restoring an appeal after more than eight years.
Case Title: Ganesh Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 53
The Patna High Court has held that failure to supply documents relied upon in a departmental enquiry vitiates the entire proceeding, as it deprives the delinquent employee of a meaningful opportunity to defend himself, in violation of principles of natural justice.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging the judgment dated 18.07.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Amitabh Kumar Gupta and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 54
The Patna High Court has held that where delay in joining service is duly permitted by the authorities, such delay cannot be used to deny the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), especially when the recruitment process was completed prior to the cut-off date.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar challenging the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge.
Case Title: Md. Khurshid @ Md. Khurshid Rayeen v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 55
The Patna High Court has held that vague expressions such as “bad work” cannot, in the absence of clear ocular or medical evidence, be presumed to amount to penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, setting aside the conviction of an accused under Section 4 of the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2018 and order of sentence dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Munger. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant under Section 376(i) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Case Title: Manoj Prasad v. State Election Commission (Panchayat) and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 56
The Patna High Court has held that a person cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands regarding caste identity to derive electoral benefits, upholding proceedings initiated for disqualification of a Mukhiya elected from an Extremely Backward Class (EBC) reserved seat.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing an intra-court appeal against the judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
Case Title: Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 57
The Patna High Court has held that mere communication of an order by a subordinate officer does not amount to delegation of statutory power, upholding the extension of a prisoner's transfer ordered by prison authorities.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2025 issued by the Assistant Inspector General (Prisons), Bihar, extending the petitioner's transfer from Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna to Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur for a further period of six months.
Case Title: Kumari Vagisha v. Kumar Sangam.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 58
The Patna High Court has clarified that the expression “living separately” under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 refers to cessation of marital obligations and not merely physical separation, upholding the rejection of a mutual divorce petition where parties had resumed conjugal relations within the statutory period.
A Division Bench of Justice Nani Tagia and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a miscellaneous appeal against the judgment dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheohar, which had rejected a joint petition filed under Section 13B of the Act. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey authored the judgment.
Case Title: Ajai Kumar @ Ajay Kumar v. Smt. Poonam Sinha and Anr..
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 59
The Patna High Court has held that failure of a trial court to frame specific issues in a matrimonial dispute under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vitiates the adjudication, observing that conclusions drawn without such issues amount to a “ballpark assessment” rather than a reasoned determination.
A Division Bench of Justice Nani Tagia and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a miscellaneous appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2017 and 19.09.2017 respectively passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, whereby the husband's petition for dissolution of marriage was dismissed. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey authored the judgment.
Case Title: Ramesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 60
The Patna High Court has reiterated that the validity of administrative action must be assessed on the basis of materials available at the time of decision, holding that subsequent developments cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise lawful action.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of the Departmental Tender Committee dated 05.05.2025, whereby the petitioner [despite being declared the lowest bidder (L-1)] was subsequently disqualified after re-evaluation of its technical bid.
Case Title: Seema Kumari v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 61
The Patna High Court has held that a beneficial executive policy cannot be applied retrospectively in the absence of express provision, reiterating that courts cannot expand the scope of a scheme beyond its stated terms.
The court said so while denying extension of extraordinary family pension to the widow of a police officer killed in a Naxalite attack, who had sought benefit under a 2005 policy which extended "special/extraordinary family pension" to all government employees dying in harness due to violent acts wherein cap of seven years had been removed. The court noted that the policy mentioned that it was prospective in nature, and hence relief cannot be granted to the appellant.
Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Suresh Sah.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 62
The Patna High Court has refused to interfere with a Single Judge's direction to pay interim compensation to a victim's family, including a conditional direction restraining the District Magistrate from drawing salary upon non-compliance, holding that benefits under a valid notification cannot be denied merely due to its interim stay during pendency of litigation.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar challenging the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had directed the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah to pay a sum of ₹4,75,000 to the writ petitioner within eight weeks, failing which the District Magistrate was restrained from drawing salary.
Case Title: M/s Imperial Private Industrial Training Institute v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 63
The Patna High Court has held that cancellation of industrial plot allotment and forfeiture of deposited amount under the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) Act cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction when statutory procedure is followed and disputed questions of fact arise.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by M/s Imperial Private Industrial Training Institute challenging the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition.
Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Manoj Kumar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 64
The Patna High Court has held that where the State unconditionally complies with a judicial order (without making such compliance subject to the outcome of a pending appeal) it is estopped from subsequently challenging the same order.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar challenging the order dated 01.12.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge.
Case Title: Sanjay Bhagat v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 65
The Patna High Court has upheld the conviction of two accused in a rape and murder case of an eight-year-old girl, holding that where the prosecution establishes the “last seen” circumstance with a narrow time gap (in this case about 10 hours) the burden shifts on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the death.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Ansul was hearing a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.04.2018 and 10.04.2018 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Muzaffarpur.
Case Title: Rajeev Singh @ Rajeev Kumar v. State of Bihar..
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 66
The Patna High Court has held that where the version of a witness forms the basis of the FIR, the entire prosecution case can be tested with reference to the FIR, which then assumes relevance under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Ansul was hearing two connected criminal appeals [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1311 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1122 of 2019] arising out of Barauni P.S. Case No. 47 of 2012, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Begusarai.
Case Title: Shyama Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 67
The Patna High Court has reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant for adjudication of seriously disputed questions of fact, particularly where rival claims regarding possession of land require detailed examination of evidence and factual determination.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging the judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4805 of 2020.
Case Title: Shyam Bihari Mishra v. Sanju Devi.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 68
The Patna High Court has upheld the dismissal of a husband's divorce plea founded on allegations of adultery, holding that vague and unsubstantiated accusations without particulars of time, place, or identity cannot sustain a decree of divorce. The Court further reiterated that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be relied upon to grant relief.
A Division Bench of Justice Nani Tagia and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a miscellaneous appeal challenging a 2019 judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan, which had dismissed the husband's divorce petition despite the proceedings being conducted ex parte against the wife.
Case Title: Jai Hanuman Enterprises v. State of Bihar and Others.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 69
The Patna High Court has held that once the State grants extension of time for completion of contractual work during the COVID-19 period and the contractor completes the work within the extended timeline, the contractor cannot subsequently be debarred on the ground of delay. The Court further held that blacklisting without issuance of a show cause notice violates both statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Supaul debarring the petitioner-contractor from participating in future tenders, as well as the subsequent appellate order dated 05.03.2024 affirming the debarment.
Case Title: M/S Trijal Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 70
The Patna High Court has held that once the validity period of a tender bid expires, no enforceable or workable relief can be granted to a bidder in a challenge to technical disqualification, even if allegations of wrongful rejection are raised.
The Court observed that after expiry of the bid validity period, adjudication on the merits of the disqualification becomes “largely academic.”
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the petitioner's technical disqualification from a tender floated through the Government eMarketplace portal for Optical Fibre Cable laying and associated works in Patna Division.
Case Title: Siya Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 71
The Patna High Court has held that where a Labour Court award directing reinstatement with full back wages remains unchallenged, the executing order passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of such dues cannot be interfered with in a manner that nullifies the original award.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing two Letters Patent Appeals filed by Siya Singh challenging a common order of the Single Judge. The Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and dismissed the writ petition filed by Singh.
Case Title: Aarpee Infra Projects (P) Ltd. v. The State of Bihar Public Health and Engineering Department.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 72
The Patna High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be maintained merely on the basis of an apprehension that a bidder may be disqualified from a tender process, particularly when the bidder has neither participated in the tender nor suffered any actual adverse action.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh observed that writ jurisdiction is extraordinary, discretionary, and remedial in nature, and cannot be invoked in abstract or speculative circumstances.
Case Title: Dinbandhu Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 73
The Patna High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Revenue Clerk accused of mutating names of private persons over government land, observing that the misconduct amounted to creation of “parallel revenue documents” inconsistent with official revenue records.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge order dismissing the appellant's writ petition against disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
Being On Bail Does Not Disqualify Convict From Seeking Premature Release: Patna High Court
Case Title: Jagarnath Thakur v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 74
The Patna High Court has held that a convict's application for premature release can be considered even if the convict is on bail, as eligibility depends on the total sentence served and not only on the period of physical incarceration.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a criminal appeal where the Court was examining the refusal to consider the appellant's premature release application.
Case Title: Ankit Kumar Sharma and Ors v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 75
The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC provisions, holding that the prosecution appeared to be a “counterblast” to an earlier dowry harassment complaint filed by one of the accused against her husband and in-laws.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha was hearing an application seeking quashing of the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran at Chapra taking cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Case Title: Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 76
The Patna High Court has set aside the Bihar Government's decision downgrading the security cover of sitting MP Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav from 'Y+' to 'Y' category, holding that the decision was arbitrary, unsupported by relevant material, and taken without following principles of natural justice.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by the sitting Member of Parliament from Purnia Lok Sabha Constituency, who sought enhancement of his security cover in view of alleged threats to his life and property from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang and Chhotu Yadav gang.
Case Title: Ram Pukar Singh v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 77
The Patna High Court has upheld the disqualification of a contractor from a tender process, holding that bidders are under an obligation to make “reliable and consistent” disclosures regarding eligibility-related particulars and that contradictory disclosures may amount to misrepresentation.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid in a tender process for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Buildings in Gaya district.
Case Title: Dr. Ranganathan Rajya Pustakalaya Samiti & Anr v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 78
The Patna High Court has expressed serious concern over large-scale vacancies of Librarians, Deputy Librarians and Assistant Librarians across universities in Bihar, observing that absence of librarians causes a “functional breakdown” in the academic health of educational institutions.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a writ petition concerning vacancies in library posts across universities in Bihar.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 79
The Patna High Court has observed that farmers who suffer crop loss due to natural disasters cannot be denied compensation on procedural grounds, emphasising that “the farmer who feeds the entire nation cannot be left to fend for himself when natural disaster strikes his field.”
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a writ petition concerning compensation for farmers who allegedly suffered crop damage in Bihar.
Case Title: Pitamber Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 80
The Patna High Court has quashed a pay verification certificate reducing the pay scale of a retired university employee and directing recovery of over Rs. 22 lakh from his retiral dues, holding that such action could not be taken 12 years after retirement without notice or opportunity of hearing.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ritesh Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by a retired employee of L.N. Mithila University challenging reduction of his pay scale from Rs. 15,600-39,100 with Grade Pay Rs. 6600 to Rs. 9300-34,800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4600, and consequential recovery of Rs. 22,08,744/- from his retiral benefits.
Case Title: Ritesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 81
The Patna High Court has refused to interfere with the structuring and packaging of tenders floated under Bihar's Rural Road Strengthening and Management Programme, holding that fixation of tender conditions and procurement methodology fall primarily within the executive domain and are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition filed by an unemployed engineer registered as a Class-III contractor under the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 82
The Patna High Court has quashed an order debarring a contractor from participating in government tenders, holding that blacklisting or debarment cannot be imposed mechanically, without notice, hearing, or specification of a definite period.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition filed by a registered contractor challenging an order dated 09.12.2024 debarring him from participation in tenders. The petitioner had sought quashing of Letter No. 3016 dated 09.12.2024 issued by the respondent authorities, as well as consequential orders passed thereafter.
Case Title: Plas Radha Int Udyog Village v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 83
The Patna High Court has upheld the acceptance of a bid submitted during an automatically extended e-auction window for settlement of sand ghats, holding that the extension mechanism operated uniformly and through a system-driven process without any manual intervention.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the validity of an e-auction conducted for settlement of two sand ghats in the Budhi Gandak and Bagmati River Group No. 4. The petitioner sought quashing of Letter No. 4832 dated 25.09.2023, whereby the authorities directed further action in relation to the auction after finding no irregularity in the process.
Case Title: Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited v. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL), Patna.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 84
The Patna High Court has upheld an order passed by the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL) blacklisting a contractor for three years and terminating contracts relating to construction of power substations, holding that the State and its instrumentalities possess inherent executive power to blacklist contractors even in absence of an express contractual provision.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition filed by Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited challenging Letter No. 2311 dated 31.12.2024 issued by SBPDCL, whereby the works allotted to the petitioner pursuant to NIT No. 42/PR/SBPDCL/2019 and Letters of Award dated 19.09.2019 were cancelled, performance bank guarantees were invoked, and the petitioner was blacklisted for three years.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Sah v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 85
The Patna High Court has quashed an order summoning a man to face trial under Section 319 CrPC in a murder case, holding that the proceedings appeared to be “actuated by malafide at many levels” and that the evidence relied upon by the Trial Court was “extremely insufficient” to justify invocation of powers under Section 319 CrPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ansul was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 492 of 2015 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 305 of 2012, whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 319 CrPC for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
'Bidder Cannot Be Disqualified On Basis Of Condition Not Forming Part Of Tender': Patna High Court
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal v. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 86
The Patna High Court has held that a bidder cannot be penalised, disqualified or blacklisted on the basis of a condition which did not form part of the original Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), reiterating that State authorities are bound to act strictly in accordance with tender conditions and cannot deviate from them arbitrarily.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition filed seeking, inter alia, quashing of Memo No. 2259 dated 29.12.2017 issued by the District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (BSFC), Kaimur, whereby the petitioner's agreement for doorstep delivery of food grains was cancelled, the petitioner was blacklisted for three years, and the security deposit and bank guarantee were forfeited.
Case Title: Prusottam Swaroop v. Umesh Kumar Sahu.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 87
The Patna High Court has held that a plaintiff who fails to perform the essential terms of a contract and is unable to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform his obligations is disentitled from seeking specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a first appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 564 of 2011, whereby the Trial Court had directed refund of Rs. 43.30 lakh along with interest and compensation of Rs. 5 lakh, while refusing the relief of specific performance sought by the plaintiff.
District Courts Have No Power To Direct CBI Investigation: Patna High Court
Case Title: The Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 88
The Patna High Court has held that District Courts, including Sessions Courts and Magistrates, have no power to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate a crime, reiterating that such power is reserved exclusively for Constitutional Courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The Court further held that a Sessions Court cannot direct a CBI investigation while exercising bail jurisdiction.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation seeking quashing of an order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in an anticipatory bail proceeding, whereby the CBI was directed to conduct an independent investigation and submit a preliminary report before the Court.
Case Title: M/s UKS-Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 89
The Patna High Court has held that courts exercising judicial review under Article 226 cannot undertake a fresh evaluation of technical eligibility criteria assessed by expert tender committees unless the decision is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary or patently perverse.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha was hearing a writ petition seeking directions to declare the petitioner-joint venture technically successful in the bid evaluation process relating to PHED Tender Nos. 08/2024-25, 09/2024-25 and 13/2024-25 and to consider its financial bids, which had been rejected on alleged hyper-technical grounds.
Case Title: Ravi Kumar Prajapati @ Ravi Prajapati v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 90
The Patna High Court has held that cough syrup containing codeine in a concentration of less than 2.5% of the total preparation does not fall outside the ambit of the NDPS Act merely on that ground. The Court further observed that such preparations are classified as essential narcotic drugs and their possession, sale, purchase, transport, import and export remain regulated under the NDPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar made the observation while rejecting an anticipatory bail plea filed in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 316 of 2023 registered under provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the NDPS Act.
Case Title: XXX (Name Withheld) v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 91
The Patna High Court has observed that the seriousness of the alleged offence and the age of a juvenile are not relevant considerations for denial of bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court reiterated that the Juvenile Justice Act is a reformative statute aimed at rehabilitation of children in conflict with law and not their punishment.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a juvenile accused in a murder case against the rejection of his bail plea. The appeal challenged an order of the Children's Court, Patna, refusing bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Caste Certificate Retains Legal Sanctity Until Cancelled By Competent Authority: Patna High Court
Case Title:. Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur & Ors. v. Madhusudan Prasad Tanti
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Pat) 92
The Patna High Court has upheld a Single Judge's decision quashing the dismissal of a bank officer accused of securing appointment by falsely claiming Scheduled Caste status, observing that a caste certificate continues to carry legal sanctity unless it is cancelled or declared invalid by a competent authority.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha was hearing an intra-court appeal filed by Bihar Gramin Bank against a judgment setting aside the dismissal of Madhusudan Prasad Tanti and directing payment of salary and consequential service and retiral benefits.