Latest Patna Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Justice Alok Kumar quashed a Circle Officer order of 5 March 2024 against Patna residents told to clear alleged public land. It said nothing on the objections they filed under an earlier High Court order, and a summary order without reasons cannot take property under Article 300A.
A division bench led by Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal by a Bihar police constable removed in 2018. She wrote No on her verification form while a 2017 FIR was pending, and her December 2024 acquittal came too late to help.
A division bench dismissed the Bihar Public Service Commission appeal and upheld a single judge order directing it to consider a Patna gynaecologist for an Assistant Professor post in the Scheduled Caste quota, holding that the 2017 advertisement never required a married woman to produce a certificate in her father's name.
Justice Shailendra Singh dismissed the appeal of a Samastipur man convicted of his wife's dowry death ten months into their marriage, holding that his claim of an accidental wall collapse was unproven and that the demand for Rs 80,000 and a motorcycle had continued until she died with four broken ribs.
A division bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Sourendra Pandey dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of a Rohtas contractor, holding that a money claim filed about eight years after part payment in 2015 fails the three-year limitation yardstick the Supreme Court laid down in Bhailal Bhai, and that Article 226 cannot be used to defeat the law of limi
Justice Harish Kumar dismissed a writ petition sent down by the Supreme Court in which laboratory assistants redesignated as demonstrators before 1991 sought teacher pay, holding that the 2017 Durga Prasad Singh direction protects their existing designation, status, rank and pay but cannot confer the status of teacher or benefits that conflict with the 2012
Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya reversed a Begusarai probate grant for a 1994 will by which an elderly childless widow left her entire estate to two nieces. Nine days before the will she had signed a police complaint that her signature and mark had been taken on blank papers at a registry office. The will bore only thumb impressions at the top of each page, eve
Justice Ritesh Kumar held that an unsupplied anonymous complaint the inquiry officer never relied on, the refusal of a retired government servant as defence assistant, and a brief appellate affirmation did not vitiate a departmental inquiry that found nine of ten charges proved against a Power Grid Corporation employee in Patna.
Justice Ritesh Kumar held that Bihar could not swap the Rs 6500-10500 scale advertised in 2006 for fixed remuneration merely by calling the appointments contractual, but limited relief to the petitioners whose appointment letters carried no fixed-pay clause and to a Muzaffarpur accountant whose salary was cut from Rs 54,344 to Rs 16,105 a month.
Justice Rana Vikram Singh quashed a 2016 cognizance order against an advocate of 35 years standing who gave two title opinions in 2002 and 2003, holding that no ingredient of breach of trust, cheating, forgery or conspiracy was alleged against him and that a magistrate cannot take cognizance by filling a blank in a clerk-drafted order.
A division bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Sourendra Pandey acquitted a widow convicted of murdering a schoolboy in her marital family, finding the last-seen account changed with every telling, the bloodstained saree was never seized, no weapon was recovered, and the trial court put none of the incriminating circumstances to her.
Justice Rana Vikram Singh found that the case diary, including the officer's own 1993 letter admitting he had not examined the bills for want of time, disclosed a prima facie case of collusion, and declined to call the charge groundless under Section 239 CrPC.
Justice Dr. Anshuman held that an acquittal in a criminal case is by itself no ground to disturb a departmental dismissal that rests on evidence led before the inquiry officer, closing a dispute that began when Rs 1.33 lakh of salary money vanished from a Nazarat locker.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish allowed five appeals, ordered a three-member police committee on the investigating officer, and asked the Home Department to report in a month.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra found no jurisdictional error and declined Article 226 relief against an appealable order, preserving the appeal.
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha acquits a husband's elderly parents and a third relative convicted under Section 304-B, holding that the evidence does not identify the last demand, who made it, when it was made, or how it stayed connected to the death.
Justice Sandeep Kumar set aside an NDPS conviction of 2014, holding the prosecution never proved that any narcotic substance was seized from the appellants.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra allowed an NIA Act appeal and ordered release, holding a proforma arrest memo is not compliance with Article 22.
Justices Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ansul hold that where nine of twelve witnesses do not support the prosecution, an interested informant cannot establish the place of occurrence on his own.
Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh hold that Rule 52(5) does not create two simultaneous consequences, and decline to decide the wider questions the appellants raised.
A Gaya landowner's compensation under the National Highways Act has been sent back for reassessment. The Division Bench holds a 2018 notification shifting arbitral powers to the Divisional Commissioner cannot reach back into pending proceedings.
Under the Juvenile Justice Act, release defeats the ends of justice only if detention would itself help the child's development. A Patna High Court judgment sets out what a Board must find before it keeps a child in an observation home.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra decline to quash a Section 148 notice issued on a duplicate PAN the jeweller had asked to cancel in 2021.
Bihar cancelled their candidature for failing to join in time. The Patna High Court holds the delay was beyond their control, sets the cancellations aside, and orders them taken on within thirty days.
