Patna High Court
Prem Prakash Rai @ Mahesh RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that when the dispute is essentially civil and the parties are willing to settle, the criminal proceedings may be stayed and pre‑arrest bail granted, subject to mediation.
Summary
The petitioners, Prem Prakash Rai and Rinku Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging theft, extortion and common intention under IPC sections 379, 385 and 34. The FIR alleges that the petitioners, after a development agreement, threatened and extorted the complainant, kidnapped him, and stole money and a gold chain. The petitioners contend they are innocent and that the dispute is essentially civil, seeking an amicable settlement. The State agreed that the matter could be settled out of court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Paramjeet Batra and S.N. Vijayalakshmi), the High Court held that where a civil dispute is cloaked as a criminal case, the court may use its powers under Section 482 to facilitate mediation and grant interim pre‑arrest bail, directing the district court to refer the parties to a mediation centre. The application was disposed with directions for mediation and conditional bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint discloses a criminal offence or is essentially a civil dispute.
- Whether the High Court can grant pre‑arrest bail and direct mediation under its inherent powers.
- Whether Section 482 of the CrPC can be invoked to stay criminal proceedings in a civil‑nature dispute.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 379, 385
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- civil dispute
- criminal proceeding
- mediation
- Section 482
- IPC theft
- extortion
- common intention
- quash criminal proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89994 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-575 Year-2015 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - PATNA CITY
District- Patna
======================================================
1. Prem Prakash Rai @ Mahesh Rai Son of Late Dhanushdhari Rai Resident of
Mohalla - Naya Tola, Saristabad, Pather Gali (M.I. Lane), P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-
Gardanibagh, District - Patna.
2. Rinku Kumar @ Bhanu Pratap Son of Prem Prakash Rai @ Mahesh Rai
Resident of Mohalla - Naya Tola, Saristabad, Pather Gali (M.I. Lane), P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S.- Gardanibagh, District - Patna.
... ... petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rakesh Kumar Son of Baijnath Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Vijay
Complex, Flat No.- 103-B, Bazar Samiti, Rampur Road, P.S.- Bahadurpur,
District - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the petitioners/s : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard Mr. Jagjit Roshan, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with complaint Case No. 575/2015 registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Section 379, 385 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, is that
Rakesh Kumar had signed a development agreement with the
accused, Prem Prakash Rai, alias Mahesh Rai, and Rinku
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89994 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/6
Kumar, alias Bhanu Pratap, to construct a multi-story building.
After completing the work as per the agreement, he handed over
the flats to them according to their percentage. Despite this, the
accused threatened the complainant and extorted large sums of
money from him. On 10.05.2015, at approximately 8:30 p.m.,
the complainant was leaving his residence for a market to
purchase household items. Meanwhile, the two accused, having
agreed to carry out the crime, were sitting in their cowshed on
the west side of the complainant's Vijay Complex, which also
contained a licensed tractor. They suddenly surrounded the
complainant and claimed that they had demanded three lakh
rupees from him, which he had not paid. "If you don't pay,
you're an Englishman," they said, "and we'll kidnap you now.
No one will do anything to you." Meanwhile, all the accused
caught hold of the complainant and started slapping him and
forcibly took him in their car. Co-accused Rinku Kumar took
out the purse from the back pocket of the complainant's pants,
which contained Rs. 25000/- and Mahesh Rai snatched a gold
chain weighing three tolas from the complainant's neck,
meanwhile, seeing the incident, people from nearby gathered,
upon which the accused demanded a sum of Rs. three lakhs and
in case of failure to fulfill it in a week, they would kidnap him
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89994 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/6
and kill him or get him killed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have
falsely been implicated in the present case. Though the
petitioners have not entered into any agreement with the
informant, however, considering the fact that the matter is
purely civil in nature, the petitioners, in order to buy peace of
mind and to get rid of the criminal prosecution, are ready to
settle the dispute amicably outside the Court.
5. Learned APP for the State submitted that the matter
can be settled amicably 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, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89994 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/6
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.
11. The petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 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 issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89994 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
5/6
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 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
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 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.
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89994 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
6/6
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…