‘Needs training’: Patna High Court notice to judge over ‘absolutely illegal’ bail order

Why court issued notice

The petitioner had earlier approached the sessions court for anticipatory bail. However, the additional sessions judge-V, Madhubani, directed him to appear before the trial court within four weeks and seek regular bail. The sessions court relied on a 2024 Patna High Court decision in Naushad Ansari v State of Bihar, along with Supreme Court decisions including Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil and Md Asfak Alam.

Justice Jitendra Kumar said that while hearing an anticipatory bail plea, a sessions court is duty-bound to either allow or reject it, and ‘cannot simply dispose it of’.

The high court pointed out that long ago, a division bench of the court held that the decision in the Naushad Ansari case did not lay down a correct proposition of law. “The aforesaid observation of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Madhubani clearly shows how ignorant he is about the law relating to anticipatory bail developed by this Court. Long back, this Court has held the Naushad Ansari case per incuriam by a Division Bench of this Court in Md Raja Vs State of Bihar and anr,” it said. Per incuriam is a Latin term that refers to a lack of care.

It further noted that in another case, the court had clarified that a sessions court, while hearing an anticipatory bail plea, is duty-bound to decide the anticipatory bail plea by either allowing or rejecting it, and “cannot simply dispose it of”.

The court observed that despite the later ruling having been circulated among judicial officers and reported in law journals, the Madhubani judge had followed the earlier decision.

“Despite such clear law laid down by this Court, the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Madhubani has passed this order on 16.04.2026 following the Naushad Ansari case, which clearly shows that he is totally ignorant of the development of the bail jurisprudence by this Court and he is passing absolutely illegal order to the hardship of the litigants,” the court observed.

The high court said this indicated that the officer had failed to keep abreast of the latest law and “prima facie needs judicial training” at the Bihar Judicial Academy to prevent such orders in future and prevent harassing the litigants, making them move from pillar to post.

“Issue notice to this Judicial Officer to file show cause, why he should not be sent to the Bihar Judicial Academy for training,” the order read. The matter has been posted for September 24 for further arguments and consideration of the judicial officer’s response.