Patna High Court
Madhu PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, given the settlement between the parties, the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
Madhu Paswan applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 341, 323, 354(b) and 504 of the IPC, alleging misappropriation of funds received under a government scheme and assault on the complainant. The prosecution alleged that he supplied construction materials worth only Rs.4,00,000 out of Rs.12,50,000 transferred and assaulted the complainant when she demanded the balance. During the pendency of the bail application the parties reached a compromise, which the petitioner submitted as a signed compromise petition. The Court examined recent Supreme Court decisions (Ramgopal, Naushey Ali, Gian Singh, Laxmi Narayan) that held settlement between parties negates the need for a detailed inquiry before granting bail. Relying on those precedents, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The order is subject to verification of any other pending criminal antecedents and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The District Court was instructed to ensure the conditions are met and the bail order will lapse automatically if any other case is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑arrest bail can be granted when the parties have settled the dispute.
- Whether the settlement obviates the need to examine the accused's antecedent or risk of absconding.
- Applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and related Supreme Court precedents to bail decisions.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354, 406, 409, 420, 504
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- settlement
- IPC offences
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- compromise petition
- bail bond
- sureties
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65643 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2021 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Madhu Paswan, Male, aged about 43 years, Son of Manistar Paswan,
Resident of Village - Bhaluwahiya, P.S.- Ramgarhwa, District - East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 01-07-2026 Heard Mr. Ram Adya Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Parmeshwar
Mehta, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 228 of 2021 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 341, 323,
354(B) and 504 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Rs.
12,50,000/- was transferred in the account of the petitioner for
supplying construction materials under the Mukhyamantri Sat
Nishchay Yojana. It is alleged that the petitioner supplied
materials worth only ₹4,00,000/- and misappropriated the
remaining amount. The informant further alleged that, upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65643 of 2025(4) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
demanding the balance materials, she was assaulted and refused
the remaining supply.
4. 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.
5. Relying on the judgment passed in Ramgopal Vs.
State of M.P., reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531, recently the Apex
Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.,
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 has set aside the order passed by
the concerned High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. considering
that if parties have arrived to settle the dispute, there was no
requirement of High Court to consider the antecedent and
conduct of the accused or whether he was absconding. In the
said judgment, the Apex Court has also relied on its earlier
judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported
in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan,
reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, and after considering the
special feature of the said case and taking the settlement on
record and applying the law, found fit to quash the proceeding
pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Muradabad.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65643 of 2025(4) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
6. In the present case, the petitioner has brought on
record the compromise petition dated 24.03.2025, jointly signed
by the parties, by way of Annexure-2 to the bail application.
7. In view of such circumstances, the petitioner,
having settled the dispute, he 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 Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 228 of 2021, subject
to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. 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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.