Patna High Court
Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the matter is essentially a civil dispute and ordered mediation, granting interim protection and directing that pre‑arrest bail be released on terms set by the District Court.
Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case alleging fraud, kidnapping and rape under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 64 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution alleged that Kumar cheated the informant of Rs 11 lakh and subsequently confined and raped her. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating the dispute was purely monetary and could be settled by mediation. Both the informant and the State agreed to attempt an amicable settlement and appeared before the court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Paramjeet Batra and S N Vijayalakshmi), the High Court observed that the dispute is essentially civil and directed the parties to a District Mediation Centre, granting interim protection and conditioning pre‑arrest bail on successful mediation. The application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 64 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act constitute a criminal offence or a civil dispute.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail pending mediation.
- Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to stay criminal proceedings in a civil‑nature dispute.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 316(2), 316(5), 64
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- civil dispute
- criminal procedure
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 316 BNS
- Section 64 BNS
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44922 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya
======================================================
Manoj Kumar aged about 51 yrs. (Male) S/o Devendra Prasad, Resident of
Vidya Prakash Mandir, Magadh Medical College, P.S.- Magadh Medical
College and Hospital, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Amritanshu Dangi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Amritanshu Dangi,
learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad
Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 64 of the BNS.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner had
fraudulently taken Rs. 11 Lakh from the informant on the
pretext of providing government teacher job to him but he could
not provide government teacher job to him. When the informant
demanded her money back, the petitioner had allegedly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44922 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
2/5
confined her in a room and committed rape with her.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the case. Allegation of offence
committed under Section 64 of the BNS is ornamental. He
further submits that the matter primarily relates to monetary
transaction between the parties and the dispute can be settled
amicably by way of mediation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant has opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail,
however, he also informs that the O.P. No. 2 is willing to resolve
the dispute amicably outside the Court.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that so far as allegation in respect of committing
offence under Section 64 of the BNS, there is no sign of sexual
intercourse and the informant has given contradictory statement
in course of investigation a chance be given to the parties for
amicable settlement outside the court.
7. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the
respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on 19.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44922 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
3/5
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 primarily the parties
are aggrieved with certain transaction of money and 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 in case of Paramjeet
Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673,
in which, the Apex Court in paragraph no. 12 has held as
follows:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to
be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and
only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of
criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. But
the High Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has
happened in this case, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to
prevent abuse of process of the court."
(emphasis supplied)
11. The Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid
proposition in recent judgment of S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44922 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
4/5
vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC
Online SC 1575.
12. The parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 19.02.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
13. 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.
14. 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
his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well
within a period of four months, till then, no coercive action shall
be taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid
case.
15. 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 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44922 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
5/5
16. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 19.02.2026 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
20. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…