HARENDRA SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32490 of 2019
CNR No. BRHC010464002019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2013 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Harendra Singh S/o Kisandeo Singh R/v- Udama Rekha Chawk, P.S.-
Mufassil, District- Katihar
2. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh S/o Harendra Singh
R/v- Udama Rekha Chawk, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Katihar
3. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Singh @ Ajay Kumar S/o Sri Herendra Singh
R/v- Udama Rekha Chawk, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Devo Singh S/o Late Sakal Deo Singh R/v- Pakada Daniya Toli, P.S.-
Naugachhiya, Distt.- Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Priyanka Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to
quash the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in S.Tr. No. 169/17
(arising out of Mufassil P.S. case No. 86/13) by the learned
Additional District Judge IV, Katihar whereby and whereunder the
application filed by petitioners under section 227 of Cr.P.C. for
discharge from the case has been rejected by the learned Court
without applying his judicial mind, without considering the facts
and without assigning any reason.
3. As per brief case of prosecution as lodged on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32490 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
2/4
basis of statement of O.P. No. 2 on 11.06.2011, it appears that
the petitioners who are in-laws and husband committed dowry
death of the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of
dowry after administering toxic substance. At the time of
occurrence the daughter of the informant was about eight months
pregnant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the wife of the petitioner no. 3 in advance condition of pregnancy
went to field for cutting grass on 13.06.2013, whereafter she
developed headache and other problems, due to which she was
admitted to the hospital, where she died. It is submitted that
doctor categorically found that no toxic substance as alleged was
found.
5. Learned counsel submitted that with all such
scientific finding which was of unimpeachable in nature, the
petitioners preferred petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before
the learned trial court on 07.08.2017 which is Annexure-4 of the
petition.
6. It is submitted that instead of passing a reasoned
order, the order which was passed by learned trial court is very
mechanical in nature without dealing the issues which was raised
by the petitioners through the aforesaid petition.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32490 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
3/4
7. At this stage it would be apposite to reproduce the
order dated 06.03.2019 which is impugned order through which
the petition of the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial
court which is as under:-
कुल अभभयुकतोमे कीओरसेहाजरीदीगईहै।शेष
" 3 1
2 कीओरसेदाभखलप्रभतभनभधतवआवेदनकोभसररआज
हेतुसवीकारभकयाजाताहै। 7.8.17 कोअभभयुकतगणकी
तररसे Cr.P.C. 227 का Petition दाभखलभकयागयाथा।
आजउभयपककीसुनवाईपशचातइसेखाभरजभकया
गयाहै।अगलीभतभथ 26.3.19 कोचाजररेमहेतु
भनधारभरतभकयागया।
"
8. It is apparent from the aforesaid order that it was
passed without supplying any reason. Time and again Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that order passed without reason is no order
in eyes of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
relied upon para no. 8 of the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as reported in the matter of Nagendra Ray vs. State of
Bihar and Anr. [ 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2199], which is as
under:-
“8. Insofar as Ramakant Solanki is concerned, even
though the High Court recorded the submission of the
Investigating Officer in respect of the video footage, it
has failed to provide its own independent analysis or
reasons as to whether this video footage adversely
impacts Ramakant Solanki's prayer for bail. Merely
recording the submissions of the parties without any
independent assessment of such submissions is not a
proper approach while dealing with applications for bail.
Reference to material, however concise they may be,
ought to be made to show application of mind.
Importantly, it is ‘the reasons’ which form the backbone
of all judicial decisions. We may briefly refer to a
decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers 8 to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32490 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
4/4
emphasize this point. It was held there as follows:
19. In the cases where the courts have not recorded
reasons in the judgment, legality, propriety and
correctness of the orders by the court of competent
jurisdiction are challenged in the absence of proper
discussion. The requirement of recording reasons is
applicable with greater rigour to the judicial
proceedings. The orders of the court must reflect what
weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief
claimed by the applicant….
24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a
law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases
(Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of
reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the
cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a
matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of
precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary
essentially introduces an element of uncertainty,
dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to
the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate
courts. In our view, the court should provide its own
grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a
party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission
stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they
may be. ”
9. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated
06.03.2019 qua, all above named petitioners is hereby quashed
and set aside, with a direction to ld. Trial court to pass a fresh
and reasoned order on petition dated 07.08.2017.
10. TCR, if any, be returned to learned trial court
alongwith the copy of this judgment, henceforth.


(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.10.2026
Transmission Date 29.10.2026