New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to an accused in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, after noticing that he had not been produced before the trial court and that charges had not been framed against him.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also directed the investigating officer to explain the reason for his non-production, and asked the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to obtain a report from the trial court in a sealed cover.
The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15763/2026 filed by Dev Kumar Paswan against the Patna High Court’s order dated 07-05-2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 28932/2026. The petitioner and others are accused in an FIR dated 8 November 2018 registered at Police Station Dumariya, District Gaya, Bihar, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, Sections 25(1-B), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA.
Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, drew the Court’s attention to an order dated 13 May 2026, by which the Patna High Court granted bail to a co-accused, Sanjay Singh Bhokta @ Sanjay Singh. The Court noted that the co-accused had been incarcerated since 24 July 2025 and also had an antecedent. His bail was granted on the condition that the trial court would verify whether charges had been framed, and that he would be released forthwith only if charges stood framed.
Ms. Shakil submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, whereas the co-accused is an FIR-named accused who was arrested two months after the petitioner had surrendered. She argued that the petitioner therefore stands on a better footing and is entitled to claim parity.
She also relied on paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, which says that charge could not be framed because the petitioner, a non-FIR named accused, had not been produced from jail before the trial court.
The Bench recorded that, for want of adequate instructions, the State’s counsel, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, was unable to explain why the petitioner could not be produced before the trial court after he surrendered on 10 May 2025, and why charge has not been framed till date. The Court remarked that, if what is disclosed in the affidavit is correct, it is surprising that the trial court did not itself require the petitioner to be produced before it.
Taking the view that the petitioner prima facie stands on a better footing than the co-accused, the Court directed his release on interim bail, operative till the next date of hearing and subject to such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose.
The Court further directed the investigating officer of the case to submit a report indicating the real reason for non-production of the petitioner before the trial court, which, according to the State’s affidavit, contributed to non-framing of charges against him.
Describing the matter as an “undesirable development”, the Court also required the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to obtain a report on it from the relevant trial court. The report must be placed before the Registry of the Supreme Court in a sealed cover by 15 November 2026. The special leave petition has been re-listed on 17 November 2026.
Appearances: For the Petitioner: Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Advocate, Ms. Tanya Srivastava, AOR, Ms. Kushank Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Anmol Kheta, Advocate, and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR, Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Advocate, and Mr. Utkarsh Rai, Advocate.
Case Title: Dev Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15763/2026
