Disposed¶29

Sandip Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Jan 2026CR. REV./656/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 163 BNSS proceeding; apprehension of breach of peace; SDM Vaishali at Hajipur; closure of proceeding on expiry of stipulated period; proceeding initiated without recording reason or satisfaction; transient/two-month nature of preventive orders; delay condonation of 82 days; criminal revision before Patna High Court; land encroachment dispute between brothers; liberty to invoke SDM afresh.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing condoned; petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of law in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate authority, if so advised. ¶29

Sandip Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing condoned; petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of law in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate authority, if so advised.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 82 days in filing the criminal revision petition should be condoned (I.A. No. 01 of 2025). +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The delay in filing the criminal revision petition is condoned and I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The proceeding under Section 163 BNSS was started without the learned SDM recording any reason or satisfaction about apprehension of breach of peace; allowing such a matter to proceed without any effective order and then closing it on expiry of the stipulated period deserves to be deprecated in the strongest terms.

¶26

Key takeaways

Given the transient nature of Section 163 BNSS proceedings (any order would have effect only till two months and would then lapse), no useful purpose would be served in continuing the present proceeding even if the impugned order is set aside; the petitioner is always at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the SDM for redressal of his grievance.ratio¶26
The Court does not need to interfere with the order dated 07.01.2025; the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of law in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate authority, if so advised.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Arun Kumar Jha, J.), Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2025 (decided 27-01-2026): The 82-day delay in filing was condoned (I.A. No. 01 of 2025 allowed). The revision challenged an order dated 07.01.2025 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur closing a proceeding under Section 163 BNSS initiated on 23.08.2024 on the ground that the stipulated time period had ended. The Court found that the Section 163 BNSS proceeding had been started without the SDM recording any reason or satisfaction about apprehension of breach of peace, and deprecated in the strongest terms the practice of allowing such a matter to proceed without any effective order and then closing it on expiry of the stipulated period. However, considering the transient nature of Section 163 BNSS proceedings (an order would operate only till two months and then lapse), the Court held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the revision even if the impugned order were set aside. Interference was declined and the petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to take recourse of law in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate authority, if so advised.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.656 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Sandip Kumar son of Late Rajani Kumar Sinha Permanent Address AT AND Post Hilalpur, P.S.- Industria Area, District- Hajipur At Resident of B 1/5, Right Side 2nd Floor, Rajauri Garden, West Delhi.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur Cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hajipur Bihar

¶8

The Circle Officer, Hajipur Sadar, Vaishali Bihar

¶9

Sumit kumar Bhardwaj @ Sumit Kumar son of Resident of ward no. 6, Hilalpur Madarpur, Vaishali

¶10

... ... Opposite Parties

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pallavi Lala, Advocate For the O.P. No.4 : Ms. Bela Singh, Advocate For the O.P.-State : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 27-01-2026

¶14

Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

¶15

Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2025

¶16

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the present criminal revision petition.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant criminal revision petition has been filed after delay of 82 days but there is no deliberate delay or laches on part of the petitioner.

¶18

4. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application and submission made on behalf of the petitioner,

¶19

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.656 of 2025(4) dt.27-01-2026 2/4

¶20

I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed and the delay in filing the present criminal revision petition is condoned.

¶21

Re: Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2025

¶22

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 4 submits that the matter has become infructuous as the process under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was initiated way back on 23.08.2024 and vide order dated 07.01.2025, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, closed the process observing that the stipulated time period has ended.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 07.01.2025 has been passed without hearing the parties and without assigning any grounds except saying that the stipulated period has ended. Such orders could not be sustained. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 4 are brothers and though a partition has taken place between three brothers, no partition by metes and bounds has taken place, still, the opposite party no. 4 started constructing a house and encroached upon the land of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint before the authorities and the police submitted a representation before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur for

¶24

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.656 of 2025(4) dt.27-01-2026 3/4

¶25

initiation of a proceeding under Section 163 of BNSS. Therefore, the order impugned needs interference by this Court.

¶26

7. Having regard to the rival submission of the parties and on perusal of record, I find that the proceeding under Section 163 of BNSS was started without recording any reason or satisfaction by the learned SDM about the apprehension of any breach of peace. Further, if any orders were passed, due to transient nature of order, the same would have an effect only till two months and thereafter, it would have lapsed. In the present case, no such order has been passed and it is very surprising that the learned SDM, Vaishali at Hajipur allowed the matter to proceed without passing any effective order and ultimately, closed the chapter holding that the stipulated period has ended. Such orders should be deprecated in strongest terms. However, considering the other aspect of the matter, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the present proceeding, as even if the impugned order is set aside. Considering the transient nature of proceeding under Section 163 BNSS, the petitioner is always at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the SDM for redressal of his grievance. At the same time, as already noted, the present proceeding has been initiated without recording any reasons or satisfaction of learned SDM and a proceeding initiated without

¶27

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.656 of 2025(4) dt.27-01-2026 4/4

¶28

existence of grounds showing apprehension of breach of peace, such proceeding could not come to any fruitful end.

¶29

8. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think this Court needs to interfere with the order dated 07.01.2025 and, accordingly, the present petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before the appropriate authority, if so advised.

¶30

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶31

Ashish/-

¶32

Sandip Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milind Sinha Vs The State of Bihar through Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

Nagendra Kumar Chaurasiya Vs The State of Bihar through chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar.

Smt. Shila Kumari Vs The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar at Patna.

Mangan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Paswan @ Anil Pashwan @ Anil Kumar Prasad Vs Shashi Kala Devi

Styendra Prasad @ Satendra Rai Vs The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner Bihar