Patna High Court
Dr. Vishal SinhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered that the petitioners be released on pre‑arrest bail, conditioned on their appearance before the District Court and referral of the dispute to mediation.
Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Vishal Sinha and Vikash Sinha, were charged under IPC Sections 420, 406 and 120 in a complaint alleging fraud in a land‑sale transaction where the complainant claimed the agreement was taken and not returned. The petitioners contended that the agreement was unsigned, the transaction was civil in nature, and the case was filed to harass them, seeking pre‑arrest bail. The State argued for the continuation of criminal proceedings but did not oppose an amicable settlement. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that where a civil dispute is cloaked as a criminal offence, the court may facilitate mediation and grant interim bail. Accordingly, the court directed the petitioners be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to their appearance before the District Court on 16‑04‑2026 and referral of the matter to the District Mediation Centre, with bail to be conditioned on the outcome of mediation.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint discloses a cognizable criminal offence or is essentially a civil dispute warranting bail and possible quash of proceedings
- Whether the High Court can conditionally grant pre‑arrest bail pending mediation under its inherent powers
- Whether Section 482 of the CrPC can be invoked to refer the matter to mediation to prevent abuse of process
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 406, 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- civil dispute
- mediation
- Section 482
- abuse of process
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.674 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2863 Year-2019 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Dr. Vishal Sinha S/o Late Jitendra Prasad Sinha R/o - 17/4, Hut Lane, Haora
Corporation, P.O - Haora, District - Haora, West Bengal, Presently R/o
Nilima Apartment, 4th Floor, Flat no. 406, 77 Panchanan Tola Road, P.O.
and P.s.- Bally, Distt.- Howrah, West Bengal
2. Vikash Sinha S/o Late Jitendra Prasad Sinha Presently R/o Nilima
Apartment, 4th Floor, Flat no. 406, 77 Panchanan Tola Road, P.O. and P.s.-
Bally, Distt.- Howrah, West Bengal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ishtiyaque Ahmad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 03-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ishtiyaque Ahmad, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Prasad
Nat, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 2863(c)/2019 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioners and
one co-vendor for purchase of 1½ kathas of land along with an
old house situated at Navratanpur, Patna, for a total
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.674 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
2/6
consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/-. Pursuant to the agreement, the
complainant paid Rs. 5,00,000/- by cheque and subsequently
paid Rs. 20,00,000/- through bank draft and cheques on the
demand of the petitioners. It is alleged that on 30.03.2019,
petitioner no. 2 took the original agreement from the
complainant on the pretext of verification and handed it over to
his maternal uncle, who thereafter failed to return the same
despite repeated requests.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the case. The criminal
proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 2863(c)/2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present
complaint case is false and malicious. The alleged agreement
dated 08.01.2019 does not bear the signature of the complainant
and is thus unenforceable. The complainant had paid only Rs.
5,00,000/- as advance, which was returned upon his inability to
proceed, and the unsigned agreement was taken back by mutual
consent. The allegation of further payment through one Vivek
Kumar is stated to be concocted, unsupported by any evidence.
The petitioners have lawfully sold the property to a third party
and the present case has been filed to harass and extort money.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.674 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
3/6
The petitioners assert their willingness to settle the matter on the
basis of the company’s official ledger after due adjustment of
returned goods, contending that the dispute arises out of a
contractual business transaction and is purely civil in nature, for
which a criminal proceeding under Section 406 is not
maintainable. The matter primarily relates to monetary
transaction between the parties and for amicable settlement of
dispute between the parties outside the Court, the matter be
referred for mediation.
5. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for
amicable settlement outside the court.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on 16.04.2026.
7. Heard the parties
8. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
made in the F.I.R., I am of the opinion that an opportunity is
required to be given to the parties to settle their score amicably
outside the Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.674 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
4/6
9. 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)
10. The Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid
proposition in recent judgment of S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.
vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC
Online SC 1575.
12. The petitioners have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 16.04.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
13. Learned District Court is directed to issue notice
to O.P. No.2 and take necessary steps to refer the matter before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.674 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
5/6
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”.
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 three months, till then, no coercive action
shall be taken against the petitioners 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 petitioners are
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
16. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to
appear on 16.04.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioners shall automatically lose its force.
17. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
complainant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim
protection granted to the petitioners shall continue and the trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.674 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
6/6
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,
petitioners are 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)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…