Patna High Court
Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court granted interim pre‑arrest bail conditioned on the parties’ participation in mediation and directed the District Court to facilitate the settlement.
Summary
Manoj Kumar, a senior bank assistant, was accused of fraudulent withdrawals totaling Rs.3,91,200 from the accounts of deceased customers, leading to a criminal case under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act. He applied for pre‑arrest bail, claiming innocence and seeking an amicable settlement. Both parties agreed to appear before the District Court for mediation on 17‑02‑2026. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s observations in Paramjeet Batra and S.N. Vijayalakshmi, held that the dispute is essentially civil and directed the District Court to facilitate mediation, granting interim protection and conditional pre‑arrest bail pending the outcome. The court ordered that if mediation succeeds, the case be withdrawn; if it fails, the bail remains subject to the District Court’s terms, and the interim protection would lapse upon non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a fraud case where the dispute is primarily civil and parties are willing to mediate
- Whether the High Court can direct mediation and condition bail under Section 482 of the CrPC
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 316(5), 318(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- banking fraud
- civil dispute
- Section 482 CrPC
- conditional bail
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87110 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2025 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
Manoj Kumar S/o- Omprakash Bhanu @ Om Prakash Gupta @ Om Prakash
Resident Of Village -Ghorghat, Ps- Bariarpur, Dist- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Indu Bhushan, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 218 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, on
23.06.2025 on the complaint of Branch Manager (Sri Awadhesh
Kumar Das), SBI Sakarpur Branch, alleging fraud by the
petitioner (Manoj Kumar), Senior Assistant, Bardah Branch an
FIR was lodged. A preliminary inquiry revealed that illegal
withdrawals were made from the accounts of deceased account
holders at SBI Bardah and Sakarpur Branches. Total ₹1,15,000
were withdrawal from the PF account of Late Upma Devi after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87110 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/5
her death. Additional illegal withdrawals of ₹33,000 and
₹30,000 were made from the accounts of Kamla Devi and
Shyama Devi respectively. Further withdrawals amounting to
₹2,13,200 were made from the account of Late Savita Devi after
her death. The total alleged misappropriation is amounting to
₹3,91,200. Thereafter, the petitioner (Manoj Kumar) was
suspended on 08.04.2025 due to missing vouchers and
fraudulent transactions.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the
matter primarily relates to monetary transaction between the
parties and for amicable settlement of dispute between the
parties outside the Court, the matter may be referred for
mediation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State,
opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail submitted that
an opportunity may be given to the parties to resolve their
dispute amicably outside the Court.
6. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the
respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87110 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/5
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on 17.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
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 FIR, I am of the opinion that primarily the parties
are aggrieved with certain transaction of money and an
opportunity is required to be given to the parties to settle their
score amicably outside the Court.
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)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87110 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/5
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.
11. The parties have willingly desired to appear before
the learned District Court on or before 17.02.2026, so that the
matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
12. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties to give effect to Mediation 2.0.
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 three months, till then, no coercive action
shall be taken against the petitioner 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 as referred hereinabove, the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87110 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/5
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 petitioner to
appear on 17.02.2026 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
19. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…