Patna High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 17 - February 23, 2025

Nominal Index:

Narendra Kumar Ram vs The State Of Bihar and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 9

Ram Autar Rai vs The State Of Bihar and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 10

Company Ram @ Tiran Ram and ors vs The State of Bihar and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 11

Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar vs The State of Bihar 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 12

Rakesh Rai vs The State of Bihar 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 13

Surendra Kumar and Anr vs State of Bihar and anr 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 14

Angela Lee Hicks vs. The State of Bihar and others 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 15

Nand Jee Singh and ors vs The State of Bihar and ors 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 16

Judgements/Orders:

Breath Analyzer Test Is Not Conclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR

Case Title: Narendra Kumar Ram vs The State Of Bihar and Ors

LL 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.”

Senior Citizens Act | Maintenance Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction Over Complaints Not Seeking Maintenance Or Property Transfer: Patna High Court

Case Title: Ram Autar Rai vs The State Of Bihar and Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 10

The Patna High Court has ruled that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not empower the Maintenance Tribunal to entertain complaints that do not seek maintenance or challenge a property transfer.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “As per the statutory provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it clearly transpires that the Act has been enacted to provide for effective provision for maintenance and welfare to parents and senior citizens granted and recognized under the constitution and for matters connected therewith and instituted thereto.”“The detail provision of the Act shows that parents and the senior citizens can seek for maintenance from the persons concerned who are liable under the Act or they can also get the transfer of any property made in favour of the person concerned declared void subject to fulfillment of the conditions but none of such relief has been sought for by the applicants,” Justice Kumar added.

HAMA | Father-In-Law's Liability To Maintain Widowed Daughter-In-Law Dependent On Income From Co-Parcenary Property: Patna High Court

Case Title: Company Ram @ Tiran Ram and ors vs The State of Bihar and Anr

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 11

The Patna High Court has held that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) a father-in-law is not automatically liable to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law unless he has sufficient income from the co-parcenary property.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, emphasized, “Section 19 clearly shows that liability of father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law is dependent upon income from the co-parcenary property, if any. But learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no such coparcenary property. There is only one residential house for the joint family where the complainant is free to live. He also submits that the father-in-law is just a pensioner and has no additional means to maintain her daughter-in-law. Moreover, mother-in-law has no liability to maintain her daughter-in-law. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.”

Juvenile Institutionalization Should Be The Last Resort; Family Is The Best Institution For Rehabilitation: Patna High Court

Case Title: Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar vs The State of Bihar

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 12

The Patna High Court has held that institutionalization should be a measure of last resort and that the family is the primary institution for the rehabilitation and reintegration of a child in conflict with the law.

It thus set aside the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case, ruling that the juvenile justice system is reformatory, not punitive.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, while delivering the judgment, stated, “Reformatory or Observation Home is one of the measures contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating the delinquent children. However, the family of the child in conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the Act. Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or foster parents of the child, and it has been contemplated that every child in conflict with law has the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law has been contemplated as the last resort.”

Seriousness Of Offence Not Ground To Deny Bail To Juvenile, 'Ends Of Justice' Mean Development, Rehabilitation, Protection Of Child: Patna HC

Case Title: Rakesh Rai vs The State of Bihar

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 13

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 Protection) Act, 2015.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “as per the statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents, I find that involvement of the appellant in offence of serious nature is no ground for denying bail to a juvenile … Moreover, the observation of learned court below that the appellant is associated with criminal activities and he has bad company is baseless. The Social Investigation Report does not show that the appellant was involved in any criminal activities prior to the present case.”

Purchaser Can Get Title Conveyed Only If Seller Has Title To Property: Patna High Court

Case Title: Surendra Kumar and Anr vs State of Bihar ad anr

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 14

The Patna High Court has reiterated that a purchaser can acquire a valid title to a property only if the seller possesses a legal title to transfer.

Justice Jitendra Kumar while delivering the judgment in a criminal case launched over alleged false transfer of Petitioner's property y accused said, “the complainant has not parted with any property to the Accused persons, nor has he executed the sale-deed. As such, his title, if any, to the land in question, is still safe, because his title cannot get conveyed to purchaser if the conveyance deed/sale-deed has been executed by someone else, who is not possessed of the title to the land in question. A purchaser can get the title conveyed only if the seller has title to the property.”

'Country's Image Tarnished' : Patna High Court Raps State Police Over 'Lethargic' Approach In US Minor's Sexual Abuse Case

Case title - Angela Lee Hicks vs. The State of Bihar and others

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 15

The Patna High Court on Monday came down heavily on the Bihar Police for its “lethargic and lackadaisical” approach in handling the sexual abuse case of a 13-year-old foreign national, stating that the role of the police authority in the matter had “tarnished the image of the country where protection of justice, social, political and economic was granted in the preamble of the Constitution.”

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri's bench expressed deep concerns over the State/Darbhanga police's failure to promptly register an FIR in the matter, conduct a thorough investigation, and submit a chargesheet with appropriate evidence as submitted by the minor's parents.

Magistrate's Satisfaction On Apprehension Of Breach Of Public Peace Condition Precedent For Initiating Section 145 CrPC Proceeding: Patna HC

Case Title: Nand Jee Singh and ors vs The State of Bihar and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 16

The Patna High Court has said that an Executive Magistrate is expected to invoke proceedings under Section 145 CrPC only when there is an apprehension of breach of public peace, adding that the condition precedent for initiating such proceedings is his satisfaction regarding such apprehension.

Section 145 lays down the procedure to be followed where there is a dispute concerning land or water which is likely to cause breach of peace. It states that when an Executive Magistrate is "satisfied" from a police officer's report or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his satisfaction and will require the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, stated, “The condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is the satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate regarding apprehension of breach of public peace on account of dispute relating to the actual possession of the subject property. Such satisfaction must be based on grounds mentioned in the preliminary order made under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C.”