Patna High Court
Umadhar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, given the simple nature of the injury and the settlement, the case does not fall within Section 307 IPC and the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Umadhar Yadav, was implicated in a violent incident at Patour where he and others allegedly assaulted an informant and his family, leading to charges under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act and the IPC, including attempt to murder. Yadav sought pre‑arrest bail, claiming innocence, a clean antecedent, and that the injuries were not grievous. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, and the fact that the parties had reached an amicable settlement, referring to the Supreme Court’s observations in Naushey Ali v. State of UP and the principles in Laxmi Narayan. Concluding that the facts did not satisfy the criteria for an offence under Section 307 IPC and that proceeding with trial would be futile, the Court directed the District Court to verify the medical report and, if the injury is simple, to release the petitioner on pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions under Section 482 CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations, including attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, justify denial of pre‑arrest bail.
- Whether the nature of the injuries (simple vs grievous) affects the applicability of Section 307 IPC.
- Whether an amicable settlement between the parties warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 482 CrPC pending verification of medical evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- attempt to murder
- Section 307 IPC
- settlement
- injury assessment
- Section 482 CrPC
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90010 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2025 Thana- Patour District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Umadhar Yadav S/o- Birendra Yadav R/v- Basatpur Ps- Patour Dist-
Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Mili Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard Ms. Mili Kumari, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Pator (Patour) P.S. Case No. 53 of 2025 registered under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. The prosecution's brief is that on May 25, 2025, at
around noon, the informant was dumping soil on his land when
Umadhar Yadav arrived and pushed his father, Shobhit Yadav,
telling him not to dump soil there. When the informant went to
pick up his father, Kaladhar Yadav and Umadhar Yadav, armed
with a sickle and an axe, struck him on the head, causing
profuse bleeding. When Pramod Yadav, Manish Yadav, and his
brother-in-law came to his rescue, Birendra Yadav, Jai Jai Yadav,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90010 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/6
Anaro Devi, Kalash Devi, and Mithilesh Yadav, all armed with
sticks, began assaulting him. When his wife, Khushboo Devi,
came to his rescue, Anaro Devi began hitting her with a brick
and snatched the gold mangalsutra from her neck.The informant
fell unconscious to the ground. The family immediately rushed
her to C&C Bahadurpur for treatment and then referred her to
DMCH for better treatment..
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted
that the injury sustained by the informant and his family
members is not clear, as to whether, the same is simple or
grievous in nature. The petitioner has clean antecedent. Learned
counsel further submits that the applicant and co-accused were
assaulted by the prosecution, which led to the filing of Pator
Police Station Case No. 52/2025 against the prosecution by
accused Birendra Yadav, and that this false case has been filed
by the them to protect themselves from the same. On these
grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90010 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/6
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, which I find can be resolved by way of
mediation. 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)4SCC78 in para-11 to 20, which is 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90010 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/6
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90010 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
5/6
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 is settled and resolved.”
7. The learned District Court is directed to call for
the final opinion of the doctor in respect of the injury report
of the injured persons and if it is found that the same is
simple in nature, then in that case, the petitioner, above
named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90010 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
6/6
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District
Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
District Court where the case is pending in connection with
Pator (Patour) P.S. Case No. 53 of 2025, subject to the condition
as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS/438(2) of the
Cr.P.C.
8. The learned District Court is also directed to
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner, as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
9. In the meantime, till verification of the injury
report, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in
connection with the aforesaid case.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…