Patna High Court

Chandrashekhar RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court held that, given the settlement prospects and the nature of the offences, the petitioner is to be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions imposed by the District Court and mediation proceedings.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandrashekhar Rai, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case arising from a land‑dispute‑related assault alleged under several sections of the BNS and the IPC. He claimed innocence, a clean record, and expressed willingness to settle the matter amicably through mediation. The State also supported an amicable settlement. The Court, referring to the Supreme Court’s observations in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, considered the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, and the fact that most offences were bailable, concluding that the dispute could be resolved without coercive action. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the District Court for mediation and granted interim pre‑arrest bail conditioned on the outcome of the mediation. The application was thereafter disposed.

Issues considered

Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted in the present case despite the inclusion of non‑bailable offences under the BNS.
Whether an amicable settlement and mediation justify granting bail or quashing the proceedings.
How the Supreme Court’s precedent on settlement in assault cases applies to the present facts.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 76
Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
settlement
mediation
land dispute
bailable offences
non‑bailable offences
Indian Penal Code
BNS

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60829 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- HALAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Chandrashekhar Rai S/o- Late Ganeshi Rai, Resident of Village- Maraicha
PS- Halai Distt- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Madhav Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Abhay Kumar,

learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

with Halai P.S. Case No. 78/2025 registered for the offence(s)

punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 76, 303(2)

and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the accused

persons named therein including the petitioner assaulted the

informant and her family members, causing injuries.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely

been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has clean

antecedent. The informant is co-villager of the petitioner. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60829 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
2/6

further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner has

instructed him that to buy peace of mind, he wants to settle the

dispute amicably outside the Court by way of mediation, in

view of the fact that the incident took place due to land dispute.

He informs that except Section 303 of BNS, all the Sections are

bailable.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State

submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable

settlement outside the court, considering the nature of

allegations made in FIR.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has

agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

on 18.02.2026.

7. Heard the parties

8. Having heard the rival submissions made on

behalf of the parties, as well as, I have also perused the

allegation made in the FIR from which, it appears that there is a

dispute between the parties and in such circumstances, an

opportunity is required to be given to the parties to settle their

score amicably outside the Court.

9. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60829 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
3/6

observation made by the Apex Court recently in case of

Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported

in (2025) 4 SCC 78, in para-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
make out a case of common object for the appellants under
Section 149 IPC insofar as the offence of Section 307 is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60829 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
4/6

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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60829 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
5/6

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.”
10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the

learned District Court on 18.02.2026, so that the matter can be

referred to the District Mediation Centre.

11. 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 to give effect to ‘Mediation for the

Nation 2.0.’

12. 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 three months, till then, no coercive action

shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the

aforesaid case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60829 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
6/6

13. 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.

14. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to

appear on 18.02.2026 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. With aforesaid direction and observation, the

present application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…