In a significant order dated June 26, 2026, the Patna High Court restrained all print, electronic, digital, and social media platforms from portraying Bihar contractor Rishu Shree as guilty in the SVU tender scam — before his trial has even commenced.
The interim order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ansul in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32409 of 2026, according to LiveLaw.
Background: How We Got Here
Rishu Shree, also known as Rishu Ranjan Sinha, is a Bihar-based contractor alleged to have manipulated government tenders through his company Reliable Infra Services. The Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) registered FIR No. 05 of 2025 against him and others, including IAS officer Sanjeev Hans.
On May 27, 2026, the SVU conducted an approximately 11-hour raid at Rishu Shree’s Mithapur residence and subsequently arrested him in connection with a tender fraud and money laundering case, as reported by the Free Press Journal.
- The SVU case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). A parallel money laundering case was also filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
- The Enforcement Directorate conducted searches across Patna, Muzaffarpur, and Gujarat, seizing cash of Rs 11.64 crore along with various documents, according to ProKerala and SocialNews.XYZ.
- The Bihar government suspended two IAS officers — 2017-batch Yogesh Kumar Sagar and 2014-batch Abhilasha Kumari Sharma — pending investigation, as reported by the Free Press Journal.
Following his arrest, Rishu Shree filed the present petition before the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of Special Vigilance Unit Case No. 05 of 2025. A secondary concern driving the petition was the intense, prejudicial media coverage that followed his arrest.
The Ruling — Key Findings
Justice Ansul passed an interim order restraining all media — including online portals, video streaming services, podcasts, social media accounts, and channels — from portraying Rishu Shree as guilty before the conclusion of trial, according to LiveLaw.
The court specifically prohibited the use of terms such as ‘mastermind’, ‘scamster’, ‘kingpin’, or similar descriptions that convey criminal responsibility, as reported by LiveLaw and ProKerala. The court also restrained media from conducting ‘media trials’ based on alleged confessions, investigation material, or unproved documents whose evidentiary value is yet to be determined.
Justice Ansul observed: “It is to be seen that these news items are not only in the mainline press or Television channels but the social media platforms are flooded with news declaring the petitioner a guilty person without even initiation of the trial.”
On the stakes of fair trial rights, the court stated: “The petitioner may be accused of a serious case, his rights to get a fair trial would not be ousted by the magnitude of the allegation.”
The court went further, warning that pre-trial vilification carries legal consequences: “Maligning the image of a person who is yet to be held guilty may come within the ambit of defamatory act, immoral act or even an indecent act.”
Crucially, Justice Ansul declined to impose a blanket media gag. The court clarified that balanced, factual, and impartial reporting of case developments may continue, stating: “Having seen both sides of the coin, this court is clearly not in a view of media gag over the issue.”
The order thus strikes a careful balance — protecting the accused’s fair trial rights while preserving press freedom for responsible, factual journalism.
Reactions & What’s Next
The Patna High Court’s order marks one of the more detailed judicial interventions on media trial conduct in recent Bihar legal history. By extending its directions to podcasts, streaming platforms, and social media channels, the court has acknowledged that prejudicial content is no longer limited to traditional news outlets.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 10, 2026, according to LiveLaw. The core petition seeking quashing of the SVU criminal proceedings remains pending and will be taken up alongside the media restraint question.
Full coverage: LiveLaw. More legal news at The Courtroom.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
