Patna High Court
Shayam Mishra @ Shayam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court rejected the second anticipatory bail petition, holding that the earlier rejection remains binding and a compromise does not affect bail for non‑compoundable offences.
Summary
Shayam Mishra petitioned for anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 384, 379, 504 and 506 of the IPC. His first anticipatory bail application was rejected because he was alleged to have caused a stab wound resulting in grievous injury. He filed a second petition claiming that the matter had been compromised between the parties, that the incident was a free‑fight, and that he is now a Group ‘D’ employee of Indian Railways, arguing that imprisonment would not serve justice. The State opposed, contending that the earlier order cannot be revisited, that the offences are non‑compoundable, and that a compromise has no bearing on bail. Relying on precedents concerning the limited effect of compromise on non‑compoundable offences, the court held that the earlier rejection stands and denied the anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the parties can justify granting anticipatory bail for non‑compoundable offences.
- Whether the earlier order rejecting anticipatory bail can be reviewed in a fresh petition.
- Whether the nature of the offences under the IPC precludes the effect of a private compromise on bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 320, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341, 379, 384, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offence
- IPC
- CrPC
- Section 482
- Article 142
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40755 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-480 Year-2021 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Shayam Mishra @ Shayam Kumar S/o Rajendra Mishra Resident of Village -
Ward No.-04, Badhurupiya, P.O. and P.S. - Sugauli, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prateek Tandon, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. This is the second prayer of anticipatory bail, as
preferred by the petitioner in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case
No. 480 of 2021 registered for the offence under sections 147,
149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 384, 379, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C., after
rejection of his first anticipatory bail through Cr. Misc. No.
2413 of 2023 dated 09.02.2023, wherein considering all
available materials, as petitioner was specifically alleged to
cause stab wound due to which the injured sustained grievous
injury, his prayer of anticipatory bail was rejected.
3. The present second anticipatory bail petition has been
preferred on the sole ground that now this matter was
compromised between the parties in terms of Annexure ‘P/2’.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40755 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/5
behalf of the petitioner that the occurrence was free-fight in
nature and petitioner’s side had also received injury during the
occurrence.
5. It is further submitted that now the petitioner selected
in Group ‘D’ service of Indian Railway, therefore, in view of
compromise, by sending the petitioner to jail would not serve
any purpose of justice. In support of his submission, learned
counsel relied upon the legal report as available through
Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 292, where learned counsel has referred Para-22 of the
judgment, which runs as under:-
“22. In Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531,
Surya Kant, J. speaking for this court, in a case
involving a charge under Section 326 IPC, while
annulling the proceedings, felicitously set out the
statement of law and applied it to the facts of the said
case as under:-
“19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed
to Section 320 CrPC where the Court is squarely
guided by the compromise between the parties in
respect of offences “compoundable” within the
statutory framework, the extraordinary power
enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482
CrPC or vested in this Court under Article 142 of
the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes
and bounds of Section 320 CrPC. Nonetheless, we
reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude
ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40755 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/5
conscience of the society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim; and
19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to
and after the occurrence of the purported offence
and/or other relevant considerations.
20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters
and weighing upon the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the two appeals before us, we
are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142
and quash the criminal proceedings and
consequently set aside the conviction in both the
appeals. We say so for the reasons that:
20.1. Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in
these appeals can be categorised as purely
personal or having overtones of criminal
proceedings of private nature.
20.2. Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred,
for which the appellants have been convicted,
do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity
or commission of an offence of such a serious
nature that quashing of which would override
public interest.
20.3. Thirdly, given the nature of the offence
and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial
against the appellants had been concluded or
their appeal(s) against conviction stand
dismissed.
20.4. Fourthly, the parties on their own
volition, without any coercion or compulsion,
willingly and voluntarily have buried their
differences and wish to accord a quietus to
their dispute(s).
20.5. Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the
cases took place way back in the years 2000
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40755 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
4/5
and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on
record to evince that either before or after the
purported compromise, any untoward incident
transpired between the parties.
20.6. Sixthly, since the appellants and the
complainant(s) are residents of the same
village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the
quashing of criminal proceedings will advance
peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the
parties who have decided to forget and forgive
any ill will and have no vengeance against
each other.
20.7. Seventhly, the cause of administration of
criminal justice system would remain un-
effected on acceptance of the amicable
settlement between the parties and/or resultant
acquittal of the appellants; more so looking at
their present age.”
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the
prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that
considering all available materials, the prayer of first
anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected and, therefore,
there is no occasion to reconsider this second prayer of
anticipatory bail of the petitioner without having any changed
circumstances, which would amount to review of earlier order
passed by learned coordinate Bench of this Court, which is not
permissible under law.
7. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that the offence,
as alleged, is not compoundable in nature and, therefore,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40755 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
5/5
compromise is of no bearing.
8. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking
note of the fact as prima facie on the basis of subsequent
compromise for non-compoundable offence, the earlier rejection
order, which was passed by one of the learned coordinate Bench
of this Court, cannot be reviewed by this Court, accordingly, on
second consideration also, prayer of anticipatory bail of the
petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.