Sasaram: A court in Bihar‘s Rohtas district has convicted Raushan Kumar (IPS: 2019: BH) for wilfully disobeying court directions and imposed a nominal fine of Re. 1. The court also criticised the handling of its orders by senior administrative and police officials and called for changes in the training of IAS and IPS officers.
The order was passed on September 29 by District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram, Anil Kumar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 82/2026. The proceedings arose from Sessions Trial No. 95/2023.
Court Questions Training of IAS, IPS Officers
The judge observed that the proceedings pointed to what he described as serious shortcomings in the training of IPS officers regarding compliance with court orders.
The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Union Ministry of Personnel and Training, asking that the training system for IAS and IPS officers be examined.
Read Also: From Love Marriage to Police Station: Bihar IPS Officer’s Family Dispute Turns Public
The order states:
“Above-discussion shows serious flaws in the training of such I.P.S. officer where they should have been imparted training to respect and comply the court orders but they treat the subordinate court as the inferior one.”
The judge further directed the court staff to send the order to the Ministry of Personnel and Training, stating:
“This, in short, shows serious over-hauling of training system of IAS & IPS officer. Hence, office clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to Ministry of Personnel, and Training of the Central Government so that training system of ‘Steel frame’ could be attuned to our democratic set-up.”
Dispute Began With Delay in Criminal-Antecedent Report
The case originated during the trial of 10 accused persons in a kidnapping case. The court had sought updated criminal antecedents after learning that the accused were allegedly associated with a kidnapping gang.
According to the court’s account, the report from the police was delayed by about a month and did not provide the fresh information sought by the court.
The court subsequently issued directions concerning the alleged conduct of the kidnapping victim and sought action based on information that emerged during the trial. The court later found that the directions had not been acted upon.
When an Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that the victim was still moving freely and that an FIR had not been registered as directed, the court issued a show-cause notice to the then SP.
Court Initiates Proceedings Against SP
The court said that the police officer did not respond to the show-cause notice. It subsequently recommended disciplinary action to the Bihar DGP and Chief Secretary.
After receiving no response, the court initiated proceedings under Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for alleged wilful disobedience of its directions. The criminal miscellaneous proceeding was registered on August 17, 2026.
During the proceedings, the officer was represented by counsel. The defence reportedly argued that the officer had not received a copy of the earlier judgment and that the APP had not informed him about the direction requiring his appearance.
The court rejected that explanation, recording that the officer had been given several opportunities to present evidence but did not appear. It concluded that the allegation of wilful and deliberate non-compliance had been established.
Court Also Comments on District Administration
The order also contains observations concerning the response of senior administrative officials to directions issued by subordinate courts.
The judge referred to cases involving execution proceedings in which, according to the order, directions and show-cause notices had remained unanswered. The court also referred to an instance involving a District Magistrate in Tamil Nadu to illustrate what it described as a broader issue of compliance with district-court orders.
The judge said:
“Even this court has no good experience with IAS officer especially District Magistrate.”
The order further records criticism of the response of the district administration in the present matter, including the court’s view that the District Magistrate had defended an “apparent dishonest officer”. A nominal Re. 1 fine was also imposed on the District Magistrate.
Direction to Record Observations in Service File
The court directed the DGP, Patna, to ensure that its observations concerning the former Rohtas SP were entered into his service record.
Copies of the order were also directed to be sent to the Chief Minister of Bihar, Chief Secretary of Bihar, SSP Saran and the Ministry of Personnel and Training.
Raushan Kumar (IPS: 2019: BH), who has been serving as Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, since September 12, 2024, is a 2019-batch Bihar-cadre IPS officer with IPS identity number 20191010.
Read Also: From DGP to CIC: Bihar Police Chief Vinay Kumar Takes VRS, Becomes Chief Information Commissioner
