Patna High Court
LAKSHMI RAIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that despite the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the single, non‑repeated assault and the compromise between the parties warranted the grant of bail.
Summary
Lakshmi Rai was named in an FIR for offences including attempt to murder, assault, and other IPC crimes arising from a land‑dispute scuffle in Samastipur. The petitioner claimed the incident was a single, mutual altercation, that the injury was caused by a door gate, and that the parties had reached a compromise, despite the offences being non‑compoundable. The trial court denied anticipatory bail, focusing only on the seriousness of the injury. The Patna High Court, recalling Supreme Court precedents (Naushey Ali and Jage Ram), noted the single nature of the assault and the compromise, and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to Cr.P.C. Sec. 438(2) and BNSS Sec. 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged attempt to murder and other IPC offences when a compromise between the parties exists.
- Whether the non‑compoundable nature of the offences bars the grant of bail.
- Whether the fact that the assault was a single, non‑repeated incident affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 379, 447, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- attempt to murder
- assault
- non‑compoundable offence
- compromise
- Criminal Procedure Code
- land dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6608 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2020 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur
======================================================
LAKSHMI RAI Son of Gango Ray @ Ganga Ray Resident of Village -
Samana, P.S. - Khanpur, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. MAMTA DEVI W/o Ajit Kumar Rai R/o Village-Samna, P.S-Khanpur,
District-Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Praveen
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
8 08-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Khanpur P.S.
Case No. 31 of 2020 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 323, 34, 341, 379, 447
and 504 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against petitioner is to assault
informant with iron rod during the occurrence causing
head injury. It is alleged that assault was made with an
intention to cause death.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6608 of 2021(8) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
on behalf of the petitioner that present occurrence took
place in the background on land dispute and it was a sort
of scuffling where both side received injury. It is pointed
out that the informant received injury on her head with
door gate while she was in exit from her room. It is
submitted that allegation was raised as an after thought
to aggravate the allegation that assault was made with an
iron rod.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that soon after
the occurrence the matter was compromised between the
parties by interference with their well wishers. It is
submitted that offence is non compoundable in nature but
compromise cannot be out rightly rejected. In support of
his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Naushey Ali and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290.
6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the alleged assault was single without
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6608 of 2021(8) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
having any intervening circumstances which also suggest
that petitioner was not under intention to cause death and
prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner was rejected by
learned trial court considering only the nature of injury. It
is pointed out that the compromise as arrived between
the parties was also ignored by the learned trial court. In
support of his submission learned counsel also relied upon
the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Jage Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana
reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366.
7. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that allegation to cause head injury, which is
grievous in nature specifically available against petitioner,
but fairly conceded that same is single in number.
8. This matter is pending before this Court for
long 4 years, where on first occasion i.e., vide order dated
17.09.2021, considering all such aspects the learned co-
ordinate Bench of this Court pleased to pass no coercive
order in favor of this petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6608 of 2021(8) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
9. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
submission and by taking note of fact as alleged assault is
single and non repeated, coupled with the fact that matter
appears compromised between the parties, therefore,
considering the guiding legal note of Naushey Ali case
(supra), petitioner above-named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period
of four weeks, is directed to be released on bail,
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Samastipur
/concerned Court, where the case is pending in
connection with Khanpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 2020,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 482(2) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…