Patna High Court
Golu Kumar @ Golu Kumar Ray @ Nageshwar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the alleged acts do not constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC and, given the parties' settlement, the appellants are entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to mediation.
Summary
The appellants appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against the Special Judge's denial of pre‑arrest bail in a case arising from a marriage ceremony where they were alleged to have assaulted the complainant and invoked caste slurs. The court examined the FIR allegations, the nature of injuries (a fracture of a finger) and held that the facts did not satisfy the elements of Section 307 IPC, at most attracting Section 326 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Naushey Ali & Ors. and Ramawatar) the court emphasized that where the dispute is settled and the offence is not against society at large, compromise may be permitted even under the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the court directed that the appellants be released on pre‑arrest bail, subject to mediation before the District Mediation Centre, and modified the impugned order accordingly. The application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under the SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC sections justify denial of pre‑arrest bail.
- Whether the alleged conduct falls within Section 307 IPC or merely Section 326 IPC.
- Whether a settlement/compromise is permissible under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
- Whether the court may grant bail pending mediation in view of the parties' willingness to settle.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 323, 326, 34, 341, 379, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14(A)(2), 18, 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- settlement
- mediation
- assault
- IPC Section 307
- compromise
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4005 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2023 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
1. Golu Kumar @ Golu Kumar Ray @ Nageshwar Ray Son of Raj Rai
Resident Of Village- Maujampur, Po - Naraon, Ps- Awatar Nagar , Dist-
Saran
2. Mely Ray @ Bittu Rai son of Raj Rai Resident Of Village- Maujampur, Po -
Naraon, Ps- Awatar Nagar , Dist- Saran
3. Patarka Rai @ Rajeshwar Rai son of Raj Rai Resident Of Village-
Maujampur, Po - Naraon, Ps- Awatar Nagar , Dist- Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Krishna Manjhi son of Yugeshwar Manjhi Resident Of Village- Maujampur,
Po - Naraon, Ps- Awatar Nagar , Dist- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 16-04-2026 Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, learned
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.
PP for the State.
2. The appellants have preferred the appeal under
Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against the rejection
of prayer for pre-arrest bail vide order dated 09.07.2025 passed
by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Saran at Chhapra in
A.B.P. No. 2121 of 2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 68
of 2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, 34 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4005 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
2/8
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, during a
marriage ceremony at the complainant’s residence, the
appellants, along with other co-accused, had allegedly assaulted
the complainant and his family members, including members of
the Barat party, and further subjected them to social humiliation
by invoking their caste name.
4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of
appellants submitted that general and omnibus allegation has
been levelled against the appellants. The appellants are innocent
and they have not abused the informant or his family members
in public view. The allegation under Section 3(1)(r) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act is ornamental, therefore, bar of Section 18 of
SC/ST Act will not come in way. However, he further submitted
that there is every possibility that the parties will enter into
compromise to buy peace for all the time.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that a chance
be given to the parties to settle their dispute amicably.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, on instruction, submitted that the appellants have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court on or before
27.04.2026.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4005 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
3/8
7. Heard the parties.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, considering the nature of
allegation made in the F.I.R., I find that such incidence happens
in the village and to maintain harmony between all sections of
the society, the parties may enter into compromise in light of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Naushey Ali &
Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4
SCC 78 in paragraph nos. 11 to 20, which inter alia are
reproduced hereinafter:
“11. Before we apply this judgment to
the facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the
observations of Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh
(supra):-
"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that
though it is a serious offence as the accused
person(s) attempted to take the life of another
person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be
oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever
there is a quarrel between the parties leading to
physical commotion and sustaining of injury by
either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give
it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as
well..."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan (supra), this
Court has held that mere mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should not be the
basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has
further held that it would be open for the court to
examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307
IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is
evidence to back it. It has been held that the courts
may go by the nature of injuries sustained; as to
whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital/
delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon
used. It has also been clarified that such an exercise
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4005 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
4/8
would be permissible after investigation and filing
of chargesheet/framing of charges or during the
trial. [See 15.4 of Laxmi Narayan (supra)].
13. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there
is a settlement between the parties. The case filed by
the appellants' party which was prior in point of
time and that too on the same day of occurrence,
has been settled.
14. It should be recalled that, at the outset, after
investigation, the police actually closed the case in
its final report of 07.09.1991. It was the trial Court,
which by its order of 05.09.1992, refused to accept
the same and summoned the appellants. The
incident is of 11.08.1991, i.e. about 33½ years back.
No doubt, there is a reference to the firing in the FIR
but admittedly there was no injury. The allegation is
that firing was done by Abdul Waris. He is since
deceased. The facts, assuming to be true, also do not
make out a case of common object for the appellants
under Section 149 IPC insofar as the offence of
Section 307 is concerned.
15. The role attributed to the seven members,
including the five appellants is not specific. General
allegation was that they abused in filthy language
and assaulted Mahmood with lathi and iron bars.
The specific individual role was only attributed to
Adbul Waris, who is since deceased.
16. In any event, the police who investigated
disbelieved the entire story. No recoveries have been
made of any pellets. What engaged the attention of
the High Court was only the fracture of the head of
the distal phalanx of left finger of respondent No.2.
17. We have seen the injuries sustained by
Mahmood (R-2) from the medical evidence
collected. From the injury report, it is clear that
while the first four injuries were contusions and
abrasions, injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 pertained to
incised lacerated wound and swelling on the middle
finger of the left hand. We have also seen the x-ray
report which shows that in the left hand there was a
fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring
finger. Assuming that this was the result of injury
with lathis or iron bar, applying the test in Laxmi
Narayan (supra), considering the injury and the
nature of the weapon used, certainly no offence
under Section 307 IPC is made out.
18. Section 307 of IPC reads as under:-
"307. Attempt to murder.-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4005 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
5/8
Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt
is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.- When any person
offending under this section is under sentence of
imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death."
19. Keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances,
the nature of the weapon and the nature of the
injury, on facts, we are inclined to conclude that the
overt act attributed to the appellants does not bring
the case within the four corners of the Section 307
of IPC, either on a stand-alone basis or as held
above with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.
20. We are also inclined to conclude that
considering the overall circumstances, the nature of
the weapon and the nature of the injury (fracture of
the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger), the
offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that
category of cases where the court should deny relief
in the event of a settlement. At the highest, the
offence alleged could be one under Section 326 of
IPC. It could not be said, on facts, considering all
the circumstances that this is a crime which has
such an harmful effect on the public and that it has
the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of
the society. We make it clear that we are saying so
on the facts of the present case. We are also firmly of
the opinion that proceeding with the trial, when
parties have amicably resolved the dispute in the
present case, would be futile and the ends of justice
require that the settlement be given effect to by
quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse
of process to let this trial remain pending under the
above circumstances, particularly when the dispute
is settled and resolved.”
9. The Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635,
wherein similar circumstances, the Apex Court have observed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4005 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
6/8
that nature of dispute and settlement has to be given due regard
when the crime is not against the society. In the said case, the
appellant was faced with the prosecution which attracts offence
under SC/ST Act and the complainant has willingly entered into
compromise.
10. The appellants have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 27.04.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
11. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties to give effect to “Mediation for the
Nation 2.0”.
12. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned, upon appearance of the parties, shall make his/her
best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and thereafter submit
his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well
within a period of three months, till then, no coercive action
shall be taken against the appellants in connection with the
aforesaid case.
13. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4005 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
7/8
or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court as referred hereinabove, the appellants are
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
14. In case of failure on the part of the appellants to
appear on 27.04.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the appellants shall automatically lose its force.
15. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
complainant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim
protection granted to the appellants shall continue and the trial
shall proceed in accordance with law.
16. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also,
appellants are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such
terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit
and proper.
17. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to
the above extent.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4005 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
8/8
19. The present application stands disposed of.
20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority and the
Patna High Court Mediation Centre for the purpose of record.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…