Patna High Court
Md. Shaukat Ali @ Mohammad Saukat AliversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that where the dispute is essentially civil and the parties have compromised, the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail, subject to the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Md. Shaukat Ali applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS). During the pendency of the bail application, the petitioner and the informant reached a compromise, documented by a jointly signed petition dated 17‑01‑2026. The court examined the Supreme Court decision in Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 78, which holds that when a dispute is essentially civil and the parties have compromised, criminal proceedings may be quashed. Relying on that precedent, the court directed that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The district court was instructed to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and the bail order would lapse automatically if any other pending case is discovered. The order thus grants bail with conditions and leaves open the possibility of revocation.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between the informant and the petitioner in a criminal case warrants the grant of pre‑arrest bail and possible quashing of proceedings.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the BNSS applies to the bail order in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- compromise
- civil dispute
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61121 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2025 Thana- KASMA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Md. Shaukat Ali @ Mohammad Saukat Ali, Aged about 49 Years, Male, Son
of Mohammad Ajim @ Aazim Miyan @ Md. Azim, Resident of village-
Lahangiya, Lohra Tola, P.S.- Kasma, District- Aurangabad (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakib Ayaz, Advocate
For the Informant : Mrs. Mukul Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Shakib Ayaz, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner; Mrs. Mukul Kumari, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant and Mr. Lakshmi Kant
Sharma, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Kasma P.S. Case No. 85 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 351(2),
351(3), 352, and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner informs that during the pendency of the present bail
application, with the intervention of the relatives, well-wishers
and friends, the parties have compromised.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors.
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61121 of 2025(7) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
has held that where dispute is primarily civil in nature and to
buy peace of mind, the informant and the the petitioner have
compromised, the further proceeding can be quashed. In the
present case, the petitioner has brought on record the
compromise petition dated 17.01.2026, jointly signed by the
parties, by way of supplementary affidavit.
5. In view of such circumstances, the petitioner, above
named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event
of his/her arrest or surrender before the learned District Court
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District
Court where the case is pending, in connection with Kasma P.S.
Case No. 85 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
6. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…