Patna High Court
Aldip Singh @ Aldip Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court conditionally granted pre‑arrest bail, directing the parties to attempt mediation before the District Court, and disposed of the bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Aldip Singh, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that he merely facilitated a visa for the informant after receiving Rs. 2,00,000, and that the visa turned out to be a tourist visa causing the informant to return to India. The court observed that the dispute appears to be essentially civil, involving a money transaction, and therefore should be given an opportunity for amicable settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Paramjeet Batra, S.N. Vijayalakshmi, Delhi Race Club, S.W. Palanitkar, Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia), the High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the District Court and referred the matter to the District Mediation Centre. An interim protection (pre‑arrest bail) was granted, subject to the outcome of mediation and compliance with the court’s directions. The application was ultimately disposed with the petitioner released on bail if settlement is reached, otherwise appropriate remedies may be pursued.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of the B.N.S. constitute a criminal offence or a civil dispute that can be settled amicably.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted pending mediation and settlement.
- Whether proceeding with criminal prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of the court.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 316(2), 318(4), 351(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- civil dispute
- mediation
- criminal procedure
- abuse of process
- visa facilitation
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90721 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2025 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan
======================================================
Aldip Singh @ Aldip Kumar Singh S/O Jhulan Singh Resident of Village -
Itawa, Police Station - Pachrukhi, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Pachrukhi P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 316(2),318(4),351(2) of
the BNS.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
petitioner took a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the informant and
thereafter arranged a visa for sending him abroad. Upon
reaching abroad, the informant came to know that the visa was
not a work visa rather a tourist visa, which compelled the
informant to return to India.
4. It appears that the after undergoing due process
the informant was granted visa. Petitioner may only be said to
be facilitator or service provider. He cannot be held responsible
in any manner, however, considering the nature of allegation, I
find that the parties may settle the dispute amicably outside the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90721 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/6
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. The petitioner is directed to appear before the
learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 12.02.2026.
7. Heard the parties
8. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, I have also perused the
allegation made in the FIR, it appears that there is dispute
between the parties relating to money transaction and in such
circumstances, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90721 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/6
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 Apex Court while considering the content of
ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in
the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024,
after discussing the earlier law laid down in several cases, has
observed in paragraphs nos. 35, 36 and 37, inter alia as follows:
Difference between criminal breach of trust
and cheating
35. This Court in its decision in S.W.
Palanitkar v. State of Bihar S.W. Palanitkar v. State of
Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 expounded the difference in the
ingredients required for constituting of an offence of
criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) vis-à-vis the
offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant observations
read as under :
“9. The ingredients in order to constitute a
criminal breach of trust are : (i) entrusting a person with
property or with any dominion over property; (ii) that
person entrusted : (a) dishonestly misappropriating or
converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly
using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any
other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90721 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/6
discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the
discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating
are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement
of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived
should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or
to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b)
the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)
(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is
likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in
body, mind, reputation or property.”
36. What can be discerned from the above is
that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406
IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific
ingredients:
In order to constitute a criminal breach of
trust (Section 406 IPC)
(1) There must be entrustment with person for
property or dominion over the property, and
(2) The person entrusted:
(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted
property to his own use, or
(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the
property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in
violation of:
(i) Any direction of law prescribing the
method in which the trust is discharged; or
(ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of
trust (see : S.W. Palanitkar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of
Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241.
Similarly, in respect of an offence under
Section 420IPC, the essential ingredients are:
(1) Deception of any person, either by making
a false or misleading representation or by other action or
by omission;
(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any
person to deliver any property, or
(3) The consent that any person shall retain
any property and finally intentionally inducing that person
to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit
(see : Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab
[Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7
SCC 712.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90721 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
5/6
37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections,
mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention
must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there
from the very beginning or inception."
12. The petitioner is directed to appear before the
learned District Court on 12.02.2026, so that the matter can be
referred to the District Mediation Centre.
13. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notice to the Informant 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90721 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
6/6
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…