Patna High Court

Bedami Devi @ Sudami DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court held that, given the lack of serious injury and the parties' willingness to settle, the trial should be stayed and the matter referred to mediation, with pre‑arrest bail to be granted upon settlement.

Summary

The petitioners, three women related to Harishchandra Yadav, sought protection from arrest in a criminal case (PS Vishambharpur Case No.23 of 2025) alleging assault over a boundary wall dispute. They claimed innocence and expressed willingness to settle the matter amicably, invoking the Supreme Court's guidance in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025). The State opposed the settlement, but the High Court, after examining the FIR and the nature of injuries, concluded that the alleged offences, including an alleged attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, did not merit continuation of trial. The Court directed the parties to appear before the District Court for mediation, ordered that no coercive action be taken pending settlement, and provided for pre‑arrest bail if a settlement is reached. The application was ultimately disposed of with directions for mediation and possible withdrawal of the criminal case.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail pending an amicable settlement.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be stayed or quashed in view of the possibility of settlement and the nature of the alleged offences.
Whether the alleged offences, particularly under Section 307 IPC, are substantiated by the facts and injuries reported.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 324(4), 329(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
mediation
settlement
criminal procedure
assault
boundary dispute
Section 307 IPC
Section 149 IPC
Section 326 IPC

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10110 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- VISHAMBHARPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Bedami Devi @ Sudami Devi, Wife of Harishchandra Yadav R/o Village -
Bankat, P.S. - Vishambharpur, Distt. - Gopalganj.
2. Mina Devi W/o Subhash Yadav R/o Village - Bankat, P.S. - Vishambharpur,
Distt. - Gopalganj.
3. Punam Kumari D/o Harishchandra Yadav R/o Village - Bankat, P.S. -
Vishambharpur, Distt. - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

2 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection

with Vishambharpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 registered under

Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118(1), 117(2), 303(2), 324(4),

329(3), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, all the

accused persons including the petitioners assaulted the

informant and his wife causing injury to them. The dispute

relates to construction of a boundary wall, which was being

raised by the informant on account of marriage of his son.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10110 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/7

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have

falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel

submitted that to buy peace of mind, petitioners want to settle

the dispute amicably outside the Court 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.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State

submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable

settlement outside the court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have

agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

on 17.03.2026.

7. Heard the parties

8. Having considered the rival submissions made on

behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation

made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is

required to be given to the parties to settle their score amicably

outside the Court.

9. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the

observation made by the Apex Court recently in case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10110 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/7

Naushey Ali (supra), in paragraph nos. 11 to 20, which 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10110 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
4/7

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.-
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10110 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
5/7

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.”

10. The petitioners have willingly desired to appear

before the learned District Court on or before 17.03.2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10110 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
6/7

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 petitioners in connection with the

aforesaid case.

13. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably

or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by

the Apex Court as referred hereinabove, the petitioners 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 petitioners to

appear on 17.03.2026 before the learned District Court or any

date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection

granted to the petitioners shall automatically lose its force.

15. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the informant

to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection granted to

the petitioners 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,

petitioners are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such

terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10110 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
7/7

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. With aforesaid direction and observation, the

present application stands disposed of.

19. 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)
mantreshwar/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…