Patna High Court
Arbind YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that, in view of the settlement and the facts of the case, the petitioners are entitled to provisional bail and the proceedings may be quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, Arbind Yadav and Rakesh Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Act (BNS) and the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the dispute had been amicably settled through local mediation. The State opposed the bail but acknowledged the existence of a compromise. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that mere inclusion of serious offences like Section 307 IPC does not preclude bail when the injury is minor and the parties have settled. Considering the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, and the settlement, the court concluded that the alleged offences did not fall within the gravest categories warranting denial of bail. Consequently, the court ordered provisional bail, subject to conditions and the filing of a joint compromise petition before the District Court, with the possibility of making the bail absolute after six months if no further complaint is made.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted in offences under the BNS and IPC when the parties have reached a settlement.
- Whether the alleged offences, including an alleged attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, merit denial of bail given the nature of injuries and the settlement.
- Whether the trial proceedings should be quashed on the ground of an amicable compromise between the parties.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- settlement
- compromise petition
- IPC Section 307
- Indian Penal Code
- Bihar Negotiable Act
- criminal procedure
- provisional bail
- quashing of proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38763 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2026 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Arbind Yadav, S/O Late Rajbanshi Yadav
2. Rakesh Kumar, S/o Arbind Yadav
Both are Resident of village - Gadhi Vishanpur ,P.S and District - Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rudal Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard Mr. Rudal Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 173 of 2026 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1),
109, 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the accused
persons named therein including the petitioners had assaulted
the informant causing injury.
4. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submitted that specific statement has been
made in paragraph no.14 of the bail petition that the matter has
been compromised between the parties with the intervention of
well-wishers, relatives and local people of the village. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38763 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/5
compromise petition has been brought on record by way of
Annexure-P/3. It has further been informed that the parties have
agreed to file a joint compromise petition before the learned
District Court concerned.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail, however, supports the factum
of compromise.
6. Considering the aforesaid information given by the
petitioners, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38763 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/5
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38763 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/5
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
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.”
7. In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38763 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
5/5
referred above and considering that the parties have already
settled the dispute and they are willing to file a joint
compromise petition before the learned District Court, the
petitioners, named above, are directed to be released
provisionally on such terms and conditions as the learned
District Court deems it fit and proper.
8. In the event a joint compromise petition is filed by
both parties and no further complaint is made by either side for
a further period of six months, thereafter, 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.
9. 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.
10. The bail applications stand disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.