Patna High Court

Vikash Kumar ManjhiversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 16 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court held that, given the civil nature of the dispute and the parties' willingness to settle, the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail and the proceedings should be referred to mediation, resulting in disposal of the application.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of eight men, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a criminal case (PS Dariyapur Case No. 428/2025) alleging assault on the informant's son arising from a land dispute. They claimed innocence and argued that the matter was essentially civil, seeking an amicable settlement outside court. Both the informant and the State agreed to allow the parties to attempt settlement and directed the matter to the District Court and Mediation Centre. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s observations in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) and the principles in Laxmi Narayan, held that the alleged offences did not rise to the level of serious crimes such as Section 307 IPC and that proceeding with trial would be futile. Consequently, the Court granted interim pre‑arrest bail, ordered referral to mediation, and disposed of the application.

Issues considered

Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted when the parties seek an amicable settlement in a criminal case arising from a civil dispute.
Whether the offences alleged under the B.N.S. and IPC (including Sections 307, 149, 326) warrant denial of bail.
Whether the settlement of the underlying civil dispute justifies quashing or staying the criminal proceedings.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
settlement
mediation
land dispute
criminal procedure
IPC Section 307
IPC Section 326
civil dispute

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86362 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-428 Year-2025 Thana- DARIYAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar Manjhi S/O Late Kameshwar Manjhi Resident of village-
Koila, P.S. Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra)
2. Chhotu Kumar @ Chhatu Kumar @ Chhathu Kumar Son of Late
Kameshwar Manjhi Resident of village- Koila, P.S. Dariyapur, District-
Saran (Chhapra)
3. Dheeraj Kumar @ Dheeraj Kumar Manjhi Son of Late Kameshwar Manjhi
Resident of village- Koila, P.S. Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra)
4. Pyarelal Manjhi son of Rameshwar Manjhi Resident of village- Koila, P.S.
Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra)
5. Dhaneshwar Manjhi Son of Late Bhagan Manjhi Resident of village- Koila,
P.S. Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra)
6. Rameshwar Manjhi Son of Late Bhagan Manjhi Resident of village- Koila,
P.S. Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra)
7. Amarjeet Kumar Son of Rajeshwar Manjhi Resident of village- Koila, P.S.
Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra)
8. Rajeshwar Manjhi Son of Late Bhagan Manjhi Resident of village- Koila,
P.S. Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra)

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
For the informant : Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

2 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad,

learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection

with Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 428/2025 registered for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86362 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/7

offence(s) punishable under Sections

126(2),115(2),117(2),118(2),109,352,351(2),3(5) of the B.N.S.

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

persons named therein including the petitioners had assaulted

the son of the informant, causing injury to him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that petitioners are innocent and have

falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioners and

informant side are gotia and they indulged into free fight due to

admitted land dispute and for the same, there is case and

counter case between the parties. However, on instruction,

learned counsel submitted that the matter is purely civil in

nature and to buy peace of mind, petitioners want to settle the

dispute amicably outside the Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

informant submitted that informant has no objection, if

petitioners want to settle the dispute amicably outside the court.

6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State

submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable

settlement outside the court.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86362 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/7

and informant have agreed to appear before the learned District

Court at 10:30 A.M. on 12.02.2026.

8. Heard the parties

9. Having considered 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 a land

dispute between the parties is ongoing and in such

circumstances, an opportunity is required to be given to the

parties to settle their score amicably outside the Court.

10. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the

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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86362 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
4/7

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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86362 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
5/7

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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86362 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
6/7

is settled and resolved.”

11. The petitioners and informant have willingly

desired to appear before the learned District Court on

12.02.2026, so that the matter can be referred to the District

Mediation Centre.

12. Learned District Court is directed to take

necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator

of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for appearance

of the parties.

13. 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 four months, till then, no coercive action shall

be taken against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid

case.

14. 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 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.

15. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86362 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
7/7

appear on 12.02.2026 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.

16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the

informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim

protection granted to the petitioners shall continue and the trial

shall proceed in accordance with law.

17. 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.

18. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,

then they must withdraw the criminal cases, which they have

lodged against each other.

19. 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…