Patna High Court
Ashok YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court granted provisional bail to the petitioners, directing that it be made absolute upon filing a joint compromise petition and compliance with conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Yadav family, were charged in two separate criminal miscellaneous cases arising from a land dispute in Keoti, Darbhanga, under various sections of the Bihar Negotiable Act and the Indian Penal Code. Both sets of petitioners sought pre‑arrest bail, arguing that the dispute had been resolved amicably and that they intended to file a joint compromise petition in the district court. The court noted the parties' willingness to settle and relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the treatment of settled cases and the relevance of the nature of injuries and weapons used. It held that the alleged offences did not rise to the level of a serious public threat, and that proceeding with trial would be a misuse of process. Consequently, the court granted provisional bail, directing the district court to make it absolute upon filing of the compromise petition and compliance with stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in criminal cases arising from a land dispute when the parties have reached an amicable settlement.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offences under the Bihar Negotiable Act and IPC warrants denial of bail despite a settlement.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Act — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118, 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 326
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- settlement
- land dispute
- criminal procedure
- joint compromise petition
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 326 IPC
- Bihar Negotiable Act
- amicable resolution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19246 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2025 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Ram Lagan Yadav Son of Late Gudar Yadav @ Guddar Yadav Resident of
Village - Navtoli Balia, P.S.- Kewati, District - Darbhanga
2. Ram Pukar Yadav Son of Late Gudar Yadav @ Guddar Yadav Resident of
Village - Navtoli Balia, P.S.- Kewati, District - Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23999 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-316 Year-2025 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Ashok Yadav Son of Hiralal Yadav
2. Lalbabu Yadav Son of Hiralal Yadav.
3. Bimal Yadav Son of Hiralal Yadav.
4. Ramnandan Yadav Son of Nand Kishor Yadav.
5. Devnandan Yadav Son of Nand Kishor Yadav.
All are Resident of village- Navtoli, P.O.-Chhotaipatti, P.S.- Keoti, Distinct-
Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19246 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Kumari, APP
For the informant : Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23999 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
For the informant : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 14-05-2026 Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19246 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
2/6
2. The petitioners of Cr. Misc. No.19246 of 2026 seek
pre-arrest bail in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No. 318 of
2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections
126(2),115(2),118,117(2),109,303(2),351(2),352 and 3(5) of the
BNS, whereas petitioners of Cr. Misc. No.23999 of 2026 seek
pre-arrest bail in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No.316 of
2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections
126(2),115(2),109(1),118(1),352,351(2) and 3(5) of BNS. Both
the cases arise out of disputes between the respective parties and
have been instituted against each other.
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respective parties submit that the parties have realized
that no purpose would be served by continuing to fight against
each other or by indulging in criminal litigation over a piece of
land, particularly when Title Suit No. 110 of 2024 is already
pending before the learned District Court concerned. It is
submitted that, upon such realization and to buy peace of mind,
the parties, being descendants of late Jagdish Yadav, have
decided to withdraw the cases instituted against each other in
order to maintain peace and harmony amongst themselves. It
has further been informed that the parties have agreed to file a
joint compromise petition before the learned District Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19246 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
3/6
concerned.
4. Considering the aforesaid information given by the
respective counsels, after seeking instructions from their
respective clients, I find it apt to reproduce the observations
made by the Apex Court in para-11 to 20 in case of Naushey
Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in
(2025) 4 SCC 78, which are as under:
“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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19246 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
4/6
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.-
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19246 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
5/6
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.”
5. In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as
referred above and considering that the parties are willing to
amicably settle the dispute outside the Court by filing a joint
compromise petition before the learned District Court, the
petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on
provisional bail on such terms and conditions as the learned
District Court deems it fit and proper.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19246 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
6/6
6. In the event a joint compromise petition is filed by
both parties within a period of three weeks, and after observing
for a further period of six months that no complaint is made by
either parties, the provisional bail granted to the petitioners
shall be made absolute by the learned District Court on such
terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit
and proper.
7. In case of failure on part of the
informant/complainant, the learned District Court is directed to
make the provisional bail absolute, or it is, otherwise, on the
part of the petitioner then the interim relief granted to the
petitioner shall lose its force and the learned trial Court may
proceed with trial in accordance with law.
8. The bail applications stand disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.