“It is surprising that the trial court has also not required the petitioner to be produced before it”: with a UAPA accused not produced for almost 14 months and charges still not framed, the Supreme Court has released the petitioner on interim bail and sought reports from the Bihar Police and the Gaya trial court.
New Delhi: Dev Kumar Paswan, an accused in a 2018 case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) in Bihar’s Gaya district, is out on interim bail by order of the Supreme Court. The State’s own counter-affidavit blamed the non-framing of charges on his non-production from jail before the trial court. The Court has asked the investigating officer to explain the real reason for the lapse and told the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to obtain a report from the trial court [Dev Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar].
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order on October 14, 2026, while hearing a special leave petition against a Patna High Court order of May 7, 2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 28932 of 2026.
A line in the State’s affidavit
Paragraph 29 of the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, which the petitioner’s counsel placed before the Bench, reads:
“29. It is submitted that charge could not be framed as the Petitioner, a non-FIR named accused, has not been produced from jail before the Ld. Trial Court.”
The Bench’s response
State counsel Akshay Amritanshu had no instructions to explain the position, the Bench recorded:
“For want of adequate instructions, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar is unable to throw light as to why for a period of almost 14 months, i.e., 10th May, 2025 (date on which the petitioner surrendered) till 29th July, 2025 (date on which supplementary charge sheet was filed), the petitioner could not be produced before the trial court and why charge has not been framed till date. Indeed, if what is disclosed in the affidavit is correct, it is surprising that the trial court has also not required the petitioner to be produced before it!”
The Court held that the petitioner stands on a better footing than Sanjay Singh Bhokta, and ordered his release on interim bail. The bail will run until the next date of hearing, on terms and conditions to be set by the trial court.
The parity argument
Appearing for the petitioner, Fauzia Shakil drew the Bench’s attention to a Patna High Court order of May 13, 2026 granting bail to co-accused Sanjay Singh Bhokta, who had been in custody since July 24, 2025 and has an antecedent. That bail came with a condition tied to the framing of charges:
“8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court before releasing the petitioner on bail shall verify whether charges against the petitioner has been framed or not if it is found that charges against the petitioner has not been framed in that event the present order shall not be given effect to, but if it is found that charges against the petitioner stands framed then petitioner will be released forthwith.”
Her submission was that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, whereas Bhokta is an FIR-named accused who was arrested two months after the petitioner had surrendered. On that footing, she argued, the petitioner was entitled to parity.
The 2018 FIR
The petitioner, co-accused Sanjay Singh Bhokta and others are named as accused in a First Information Report dated November 8, 2018, registered at Police Station Dumariya, District Gaya. It invokes Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25(1-B), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959; Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA.
Reports to be filed, and the next hearing
“8. The investigating officer of the case shall submit a report before this Court indicating the real reason for non-production of the petitioner before the trial court, which as per the aforesaid affidavit, has contributed to non-framing of charges against him.
9. At the same time, we require the Registrar General of the High Court to obtain a report from the relevant trial court with regard to the undesirable development that has been noted above. Such report must be placed before the Registry of this Court in a sealed cover by 15th November, 2026.”
The special leave petition will be listed again on November 17, 2026.
The allegations against the petitioner are untested and remain to be proved at trial. The Supreme Court’s order is an interim one and expresses no view on the merits of the prosecution case, and the petitioner is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
What the order signals
Bringing an undertrial before the court is no mere formality. Without the accused in front of the judge, charges cannot be framed and a trial cannot begin. Once the State concedes on affidavit that this did not happen, the delay is hard to lay at the accused’s door, and his continued detention, with the case not yet at the stage of charge, becomes difficult to justify even under a stringent statute such as the UAPA.
The Bench has also looked beyond the prosecution. By seeking the investigating officer’s reasons and calling for a sealed-cover report from the trial court through the Patna High Court’s Registrar General, it has signalled that keeping an undertrial’s case moving is a shared responsibility of the police, the jail and the trial court. Parity with a co-accused who got conditional bail completed the case for interim release.
Case Title: Dev Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15763/2026]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 14, 2026
For Petitioner: Fauzia Shakil, Tanya Srivastava (AOR), Kushank Mittal, Anmol Kheta and Dinesh Kumar, Advocates
For Respondent: Akshay Amritanshu (AOR), Sarthak Srivastava and Utkarsh Rai, Advocates