Patna High Court
Roshan Kumar @ Roshan RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, given the circumstances and the parties' willingness to settle, the petitioner should be granted interim protection and the matter referred to mediation, with pre‑arrest bail to be granted if settlement is achieved.
Summary
Roshan Kumar was named in a FIR (Jamui P.S. Case No. 545 of 2025) under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and alleged to have assaulted an informant, causing head injury. Both parties, who are co‑villagers, sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner sought to avoid arrest by settling the dispute amicably. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case should be resolved through mediation, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 78, which emphasized the court’s discretion to allow settlement in cases lacking serious public harm. The State opposed the settlement but agreed to consider mediation. The High Court, relying on the Apex Court’s observations regarding Section 307 IPC and the nature of injuries, directed that the matter be referred to the District Mediation Centre, granted interim protection and pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner, and disposed of the application pending settlement.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail and interim protection pending an amicable settlement.
- Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed or stayed on account of a settlement between the parties.
- Whether the alleged offences, including those under Section 307 IPC, warrant continuation of trial despite the parties' desire for reconciliation.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 303(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326
Subjects
- amicable settlement
- mediation
- pre‑arrest bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 149 IPC
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20919 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-545 Year-2025 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
Roshan Kumar @ Roshan Ram S/o Bhola Ram @ Pramod Ram Resident of
Village- Kalyanpur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard the matter in Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State joined
the proceeding in virtual mode.
3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Jamui P.S. Case No. 545 of 2025 registered under Sections
191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 118(1) and 109 of BNS.
4. As per the allegation made in the FIR, all the
accused persons including the petitioner assaulted the informant
causing head injury. Both the parties are co-villager and both
sides sustained grievous injury in the occurrence.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely
been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20919 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/7
that both the parties are co-villager and both the sides sustained
grievous injury in the occurrence and to buy peace of mind,
petitioner wants 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.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
7. The petitioner’s counsel also informs that he has
received instruction that the petitioner also wants to reconcile
the dispute by way of mediation and has agreed to appear before
the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on or before 04.05.2026
for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
8. Heard the parties
9. 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.
10. 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.20919 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
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.20919 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
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.20919 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
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.”
11. The petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 04.05.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
12. 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.
13. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20919 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
6/7
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 petitioner in connection with the
aforesaid case.
14. 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, the petitioner is required to be released on pre-
arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District
Court deems it fit and proper.
15. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 04.05.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.
16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial shall
proceed in accordance with law.
17. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner
is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
18. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20919 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
7/7
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
19. With aforesaid direction and observation, 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)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…