The Supreme Court on Friday cancelled the bail granted to Mokama MLA Anant Singh in the murder case of Dularchand Yadav, directing him to surrender before the authorities by December 1. The Court passed the direction while hearing a plea filed by Niraj Kumar, the deceased’s grandson, challenging the Patna High Court’s decision to grant bail. The bench observed that the High Court had failed to adequately consider relevant material, including the nature of the alleged offence and criminal antecedents of the accused, while granting him bail.
A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale also directed the State of Bihar to complete the pending investigation within four months and listed the matter thereafter for further consideration.
The case arises from the alleged killing of 75-year-old Dularchand Yadav on October 30, 2025, during the Bihar Assembly election campaign in Mokama. Dularchand Yadav, a former RJD leader and supporter of the Jan Suraaj Party, was campaigning for a candidate opposing Anant Singh when the incident occurred. The complaint alleged that Singh took out a pistol and shot Dularchand Yadav in the leg following a confrontation. After that, a vehicle was driven over him. Dularchand Yadav was declared dead after being taken to hospital.
Anant Singh was arrested on November 1, 2025. However, the Patna High Court granted him bail on March 19, 2026. Challenging the order, the deceased’s grandson Niraj Kumar approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had failed to adequately consider Anant Singh’s criminal antecedents, including 67 cases disclosed against him.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that the murder had taken place in broad daylight and that the deceased was unarmed and had not provoked the accused. The counsel argued that Yadav’s only alleged fault was that he was campaigning for a rival political party.
Reading from the eyewitness account, the counsel submitted that after Dularchand Yadav objected to the abuse, he was pulled out of the vehicle and shot in the knee. The counsel further alleged that, after realising that the gunshot had not killed him, the accused ran a vehicle over him.
The bench referred to its earlier order issuing notice, which recorded the petitioner’s submission that the respondent’s 67 criminal antecedents had not been duly considered by the High Court while granting bail.
Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Anant Singh disputed the figure of 67 cases and submitted that he had 13 pending cases, with only one involving offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. Reading from the counter-affidavit, he submitted that two other accused had been granted anticipatory bail, while two had received regular bail.
Mr Dave further referred to statements of four independent eyewitnesses to argue that the incident occurred after his vehicle had passed the spot. He argued that these statements supported Anant Singh’s case that he was not involved in the incident.
The bench observed that the facts were disturbing but said that the trial court would consider the eyewitness statements and other evidence during the proceedings.
The bench questioned the argument that the criminal cases against the accused arose from political rivalry, observing that the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences also had to be considered. It remarked that the High Court had erred in treating the antecedents as arising out of political rivalry without appreciating the nature of the offences allegedly committed.
At this stage, Dave sought time for the respondent to surrender, citing a marriage in the family. The Court granted the request and directed him to surrender on or before December 1. and ordered the State to complete the investigation within four months.