Patna High Court

Aanand Thakur @ Anand Kumar Sharma @ Aanand Kr. SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

The Court held that, given the minor nature of the injuries and the parties' willingness to settle, pre‑arrest bail should be conditionally granted and the matter referred to mediation.

Summary

The petitioner, Aanand Thakur, was charged under several sections of the B.N.S. for allegedly assaulting an informant during a dispute over a Rs. 4 lakh loan. He claimed innocence, stating the incident was a simple fight in self‑defence and sought pre‑arrest bail, expressing willingness to settle the matter amicably. The State opposed the bail but agreed to allow an opportunity for settlement. The Court, referring to the Supreme Court’s observations in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noted that the injuries were minor and the alleged offences did not rise to the level of attempted murder under IPC 307. Consequently, the Court directed the matter to the District Mediation Centre, ordered the issuance of notices, and conditioned the grant of pre‑arrest bail on the parties’ appearance and possible settlement, disposing of the application.

Issues considered

Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case involving assault and other offences under the B.N.S. when the parties seek an amicable settlement.
Whether the alleged offences, including those punishable under IPC 307, are substantiated by the nature of injuries and facts of the case.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
amicable settlement
mediation
assault
IPC 307
IPC 326
criminal procedure
Bihar

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86430 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2025 Thana- IMAMGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Aanand Thakur @ Anand Kumar Sharma @ Aanand Kr. Sharma Son of Ram
Bharat Thakur R/o Village - Bela, P.S. - Imamganj, Distt. - Gaya ji.

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

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

2 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar,

learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 202/2025 registered for the

offence(s) punishable under Sections

126(2),115(2),118(1),109,352,351(2),3(5), of the B.N.S.

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

along with other accused persons, had assaulted the informant

causing injury to him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely

been implicated in the present case. Both the petitioner and the

informant are own gotias and were involved in a free fight
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86430 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/7

arising out of a dispute. The dispute occurred because the

informant had taken a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs from one Dayanand

Thakur by mortgaging land, with an assurance that the said

amount would be returned within one month. In the course of

the incident, in self-defence, the petitioner may have caused

some injury to the informant but the said injury is simple in

nature. However, on instruction, learned counsel submitted that

to buy peace of mind, petitioner wants to settle the dispute

amicably outside the Court.

5. 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

petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has

agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

on 12.02.2026.

7. Heard the parties

8. 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 there is a

dispute between the parties and in such circumstances, an

opportunity is required to be given to the parties to settle their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86430 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/7

score amicably outside the Court.

9. 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
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86430 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
4/7

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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86430 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
5/7

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
is settled and resolved.”

10. The petitioner has 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.

11. Learned District Court is directed to take

necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and

upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86430 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
6/7

Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for

appearance of the parties.

12. 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 petitioner in connection with the aforesaid

case.

13. 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 petitioner is required to be released on pre-

arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District

Court deems it fit and proper.

14. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to

appear on 12.02.2026 before the learned District Court or any

date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection

granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.

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

informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim

protection granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial

shall proceed in accordance with law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86430 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
7/7

16. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that

case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner

is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and

conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.

17. 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…