30 Important Patna High Court Judgments Of 2025

1. Cognizance Of Offence U/S 188 IPC Requires Complaint By Public Servant, Not FIR: Patna High Court Quashes Magistrate's Order Title: Bijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar Bimal v. 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). Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “The Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 188 IPC on a police report. He can take cognizance of such offense only on the complaint of the public servant whose order has been violated or on the complaint of an administratively superior public servant.” 2. 'Re-evaluation Is Not Permissible In Cases Where Authorities Have Ensured Clarity', Patna High Court Title: Bihar Public Service Commission v. 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. 3. Individuals Not Charge-Sheeted Can Be Summoned To Face Trial If Evidence Establishes Their Involvement In Offence: Patna High Court Title: Draupadi Kunwar @ Draupati Kunwar and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Anr Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 6 The Patna High Court 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. 4. Unilateral Appointment Clause Of Arbitrator Hinders Equal Participation Of Parties In Appointment Process: Patna High Court Title: M/s R.S. Contruction v. Building Construction Department Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 7 The Patna High Court Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran 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. The court relied on the judgment in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company (2019) and 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. Finally, the court rejected the request case. 5. Procedural Impediments In Govt Machinery Not 'Sufficient Cause' For Condoning Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Patna High Court 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. 6. Breath Analyzer Test Is Not Conclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Title: Narendra Kumar Ram v. 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.” 7. Seriousness Of Offence Not Ground To Deny Bail To Juvenile, 'Ends Of Justice' Mean Development, Rehabilitation, Protection Of Child: Patna HC Title: Rakesh Rai v. 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...

30 Important Patna High Court Judgments Of 2025

Rushil Batra

Tags