A Bihar court has held former Rohtas Superintendent of Police Raushan Kumar guilty of contempt for wilfully failing to comply with judicial directions, imposing a symbolic fine of Re 1 and ordering that the conviction be entered into his service record. In an order dated September 29, 2026, District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV Anil Kumar directed the Rohtas District Magistrate to deduct the fine amount directly from the officer’s salary within 15 days and deposit it in the court treasury. Kumar, who currently serves as Senior Superintendent of Police in Saran, faced the penal action after repeatedly ignoring court directives and formal notices issued in connection with a trial.
Training of civil servants requires overhaul
Expressing serious concern over an attitude where subordinate judicial forums are treated as inferior, the court observed that such an approach runs counter to the healthy functioning of a democratic setup. Additional Sessions Judge Anil Kumar noted that the training curricula for Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service officers suffer from deep shortcomings and must be reformed to emphasize institutional accountability and deference to judicial mandates. The court directed that a copy of the ruling be forwarded to the Union Ministry of Personnel and Training, pointing out that administrative indifference to court summons is not limited to Bihar and citing a similar instance in Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, where a district magistrate allegedly failed to answer court notices.
Disregard of directives during kidnapping trial
The contempt proceedings originated from Sessions Trial Case No. 95/2023, wherein the trial court convicted 10 persons under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code for a kidnapping involving an alleged ransom demand of Rs 1.50 crore. Despite the victim and his informant son turning hostile during the proceedings after reportedly receiving Rs 20 lakh, the court decided the case on available evidence. It subsequently ordered the then Rohtas police chief to obtain fresh criminal antecedent reports of the convicts, register an FIR against the victim for alleged perjury, and examine the victim’s alleged ties to narcotics trade and gambling activities linked to his son. The required antecedent report was submitted nearly a month late, merely reproducing older case diary entries instead of providing fresh information.
Failure to respond to show-cause notices
Following the delay, the court issued a show-cause notice to the officer in July 2026, which went unanswered. Communications sent on July 16 to the Bihar Director General of Police and the Chief Secretary seeking departmental action and an action-taken report also drew no response. The court formally initiated contempt proceedings under Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on August 17, 2026. While the officer later argued through counsel that the initial orders were never received, the court dismissed the defense upon confirming delivery to the Rohtas SP office. The court criticized the officer for avoiding personal appearance to lead evidence and attempting to influence the case through an eminent person. Copies of the final verdict were sent to the Bihar Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, DGP, Saran SSP, and the Union Personnel Ministry.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
