Patna High Court – Orders
Sita Sahu vs The State Of Bihar Through The Chief … on 14 August, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1850 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-403 Year-2025 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
======================================================
1. Sita Sahu, W/O Late Baidyanaith Prasad R/O Bari Patan Devi, Sri Mahabir
Jee Mills, Badi Patan Devi Galli, Maharajganj, Gulzarbagh, Patna, Bihar-
800007.
2. Shishir Kumar, S/O Late Baidyanath Prasad R/ Behind Badi Patan Devi
Mandir, Maharajganj, Patna City, Alamganj, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar. Bihar
3. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar. Bihar
4. The Director General of Police, Bihar. Bihar
5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. Bihar
6. The Minicipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation. Bihar
7. Mr. Prakash Sharma, D.S.P. (Town) Bihar
8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, P.S In-Charge Gandhi Maidan Police Station. Bihar
9. Mr. Rahul Thakur, P.S. In-Charge, Alamganj Police Station. Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Mayuri, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Kamleshwar Pandey, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Narayan, AC to AG
For the PMC : Mr. Amarnath Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 14-08-2025
Heard Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners, and Mr. Prabhu Narayan, learned AC to AG
appearing for the State.
2. The instant criminal writ jurisdiction case, which
has been assigned to another Bench, is taken up by this Bench in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
2/10
view of the urgent mentioning notice and considering the prayer
of the petitioners made by their learned senior counsel through
mentioning.
3. Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submits that the instant petition has been filed under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the
petitioners, namely, Sita Sahu and Shishir Kumar. Petitioner No.
1 is the Mayor of the Patna Municipal Corporation (in short,
‘PMC’), and Petitioner No. 2 is the son of Petitioner No. 1. His
wife is also a councillor of PMC, as such, the said petitioner is
associated with the affairs of the corporation as a representative
of the chief councillor. Both petitioners belong to a family
engaged in various political and social activities and are always
in the public eye.
4. The learned counsel further submits that the brief
background of the events leading to the alleged false implication
of the petitioners in the instant matter is that on 11.07.2025, a
meeting of the general body of the PMC was convened at Hotel
Panache, Gandhi Maidan. In that meeting, there was an
altercation in between the councillors, as a few of them were not
in agreement with the proposals being passed. Consequently,
they walked out of the meeting. The Municipal Commissioner
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
3/10
of PMC, who is O.P. No. 6, despite being an officer of the
municipality, walked out of the said meeting along with the
councillors, although almost 80% of the councillors remained
there under the presiding officer, i.e., the Mayor.
5. Learned senior counsel further submits that the
Municipal Commissioner made several unfounded statements
against the Mayor and alleged that she was indulging in
corruption, despite the fact that the resolutions were being
passed not by the Mayor alone, but with the consent of almost
80% of the councillors. Petitioner No. 2 was not present in the
seminar hall where the meeting was being conducted and was
seated outside in the corridor along with representatives of other
councillors, which is evident and can be checked from CCTV
footage of the cameras installed in that area.
He next submits that while the Municipal Commissioner
and the councillors were leaving the venue, they started raising
slogans against Petitioner No. 2, shouting “Super Mayor
Murdabad” and hurling abuses at him. However, with the
intervention of the representatives of other councillors and
people present in the corridor, the situation was diffused, and the
Municipal Commissioner left the venue along with the
councillors. While leaving, he allegedly threatened Petitioner
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
4/10
No. 2 with dire consequences. Thereafter, due to the said
incident, one of the ward councillors, namely Jeet Kumar, filed
a false case on 11.07.2025 at the instance of the Municipal
Commissioner against both petitioners, alleging that Petitioner
No. 2 had attacked him with the intention to cause his death at
the venue. It was further alleged that when the Municipal
Commissioner, along with a few councillors, was leaving the
meeting, Petitioner No. 2 attacked them along with his armed
security guards.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint
filed by the said Jeet Kumar, on the basis of which Gandhi
Maidan P.S. Case No. 403 of 2025 was registered, was signed
by two other ward councillors, namely Vinay Kumar and Rahul
Yadav. However, the said Rahul Yadav was not present at the
place of the alleged scuffle, which can be verified from the
CCTV footage. On the basis of the complaint, Gandhi Maidan
P.S. Case No. 403/2025 was registered for offences under
Sections 126, 115, 352, 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS’). Among these, only Section 126
is a cognizable offence while the others are non-cognizable and
bailable. Section 126 deals with wrongfully restraining a person,
which is a minor offence and also bailable. Despite all these
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
5/10
being bailable offences, a large number of police personnel
arrived in six vehicles (Gypsies), led by the Station In-Charge of
Gandhi Maidan, at the residence of the petitioners at
approximately 12:00 midnight. They attempted to break the
Mayor’s door and created a disturbance for nearby residents.
During this process, all the streetlights were turned off by the
authorities, causing the local people to remain indoors. The
police remained outside the house until 7:00 A.M. The incident
was published in newspapers, a cutting of which has been filed
as Annexure-2 series.
It is further submitted that on 13.07.2025 at about 10:55
A.M., the police again forcefully entered the petitioners’ house
despite their absence, which had been conveyed to the police by
their staff. These acts of the police clearly demonstrate
malicious intent and constitute police excesses in respect of the
bailable offences under investigation.
It is also submitted that on 04.08.2025, when the instant
case was taken up, it was informed by the State that the
investigating officer had filed an application before the
Magistrate seeking to add penal provisions of the Arms Act to
the FIR, which is still pending. The said move was initiated only
after the submission made in the court on 04.08.2025, indicating
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
6/10
a malicious intention of the police. Moreover, the mandatory
provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. (now Sections 35(3)(4)(5)
(6) of BNSS) regarding the issuance of notice to the petitioners
were not complied with, and the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, were ignored, even though all
offences in the FIR are bailable.
7. It is lastly submitted that although Petitioner No. 2
has five criminal antecedents but he has obtained bail in four
cases. In the fifth case, he filed an anticipatory bail petition No.
2465/2025 before the Sessions Judge, Patna, which was
dismissed, primarily because he had complied with the notice
issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS and thus did not have
apprehension of arrest at that time. Hence, the Kotwali P.S. Case
No. 207/2025 cannot be made a ground for conducting
extensive raids on his house, particularly when he is on bail in
other cases and the present matter involves only bailable
offences.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Narayan, learned AC
to AG, submits that serious allegations exist against Petitioner
No. 2, including the use of firearms by his bouncers, who
allegedly threatened the Municipal Commissioner and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
7/10
councillors. He argues that the provisions of the Arms Act are
attracted and that appropriate steps have been taken to add the
offences of the Arms Act to the FIR. He further submits that all
search, seizure, and raids conducted during the course of
investigation are considered to be part of the investigation
process. In view of the Petitioner No. 2’s criminal antecedents,
the police action cannot be termed illegal. In support of these
submissions, reliance is placed on Manubhai Ratilal Patel
through Ushaben v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2013)
1 SCC 314, particularly para ’28’. It is also submitted that the
principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra) apply only at the
stage of arrest, and any violation of Section 41A Cr.P.C. (now
Section 35 of BNSS) would be considered by the concerned
Magistrate or trial court.
9. Heard both sides and perused the relevant
materials. When asked whether the alleged raids at the
petitioners’ residences were conducted at midnight or not, if yes
then under what authority or direction such raids were
conducted, the learned counsel for the State cannot give a
satisfactory answer. In past three years while dealing with
thousands of criminal matters, I have often come across the
casual and negligent approach of the investigating officer in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
8/10
collecting the material evidences and in many offences such as
loot, dacoity, theft, etc. the accused is chargesheeted solely on
the basis of confessional statements without taking any pain to
collect the admissible evidence even the investigating officer
does not avail the provision of police remand to gather
information from the accused by interrogating him particular in
the offence of loot, dacoity, etc. In a criminal matter involving
only bailable offences over activism like the present matter on
the part of the police during the course of investigation is never
seen, so, the alleged conduct of the investigating officer in
Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 403/2025 can be deemed a
reasonable reason for arising a question in the mind of the
petitioners with regard to fairness and impartiality of the
investigating officer while doing the investigation in connection
with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 403/2025. Considering this
aspect and mainly the genesis of the occurrence, the petitioners’
background, the informant’s background, and the nature of the
offences under which Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 403/2025
has been registered, I find some substance in the submissions
advanced by the petitioners’ counsel, particularly with regard to
the alleged misuse of police machinery.
10. However, it would be appropriate to consider all
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
9/10
facts stated by the State’s counsel on affidavit. Therefore, he is
directed to file counter affidavit of State detailing the facts and
evidences upon which he is opposing the petitioners’ prayer and
also produce the CCTV footage relevant to the alleged
occurrence, as allegedly committed by Petitioner No. 2, in a pen
drive. One week’s time is granted for this purpose.
11. The Director General of Police, Bihar, is directed
to ensure a fair and impartial investigation in relation to Gandhi
Maidan P.S. Case No. 403/2025 and ensure compliance with the
provisions of Section 41A Cr.P.C. (now Sections 35(3)(4)(5)(6)
of BNSS) and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Strict compliance with the
provisions of BNSS relating to search, seizure, and arrest,
keeping in view the nature of the offences, bailable or non-
bailable, shall also be ensured. For achieving this, the
investigation of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 403/2025 may be
supervised by a senior police officer up to the rank of
Superintendent of Police, or any other appropriate direction may
be issued in this regard. Since the offences in the FIR are
bailable and no additional offences have been added as of now,
so, the provisions of Section 436 Cr.P.C. (now Section 478 of
BNSS) must be strictly complied with if the petitioners are
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1850 of 2025(4) dt.14-08-2025
10/10
taken into custody.
12. Till the next date of hearing, i.e., 22.08.2025, no
coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in
connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 403 of 2025.
13. List this matter on 22.08.2025 under the
appropriate heading.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U T