Patna High Court
Satendra PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the alleged acts do not fall within Section 307 IPC and, in view of the amicable settlement, the proceedings should be quashed and the petitioners released on pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The petitioners Satendra, Bihari and Amrendra Pandey sought protection from arrest in a criminal case (PS Jagdishpur Case No. 278 of 2025) alleging assault with sticks, rods and a pistol that caused injuries to an informant and his father. They claimed innocence and expressed a desire for an amicable settlement, a view also supported by the State. The High Court examined whether the alleged acts amounted to an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Naushey Ali (2025) and earlier precedents. Finding that the injuries and weapons used did not satisfy the criteria for Section 307 and could at most attract Section 326 IPC, the Court held that continuing the trial would be futile given the parties’ settlement. Consequently, the Court directed the matter to the District Mediation Centre, ordered pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under Section 307 IPC warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.
- Whether an amicable settlement between the parties justifies quashing the criminal proceedings.
- Whether the court can grant pre‑arrest bail conditioned on settlement and mediation.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326
Subjects
- settlement
- mediation
- pre‑arrest bail
- attempt to murder
- Section 307 IPC
- criminal procedure
- quashing of proceedings
- amicable resolution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.92081 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2025 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Satendra Pandey Son Of Chandra Kishore Pandey Resident Of Diul P.S.
Jagdishpur, Dist Bhojpur
2. Bihari Pandey @ Awadh Bihari Pandey Son Of Chandra Kishore Pandey
Resident of Diul P.S Jagdishpur Dist Bhojpur
3. Amrendra Pandey @ Kamendra Pandey Son of Chandra Kishore Pandey
Resident Of Diul P.s Jagdishpur Dist Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Akanksha Malviya, advocate
Mr.Akash Keshav, Advocate
Mr.Ayushman Kishore, Advocate
Ms.Naina Nancy, Advocate
Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Ms. Akanksha Malviya along with Mr. Akash
Keshav, Mr. Ayushman Kishore, Ms. Naina Nancy and Mr. Anuj
Kumar Shrivastav, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and Mr. Harendra Prasad, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 278 of 2025 registered under Sec-
tions 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and
3(5) of BNS, 2023.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
petitioners assaulted the informant with sticks, rods and pistol,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92081 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/8
causing injuries to his head and other parts of the body. It is
further alleged that when the father of the informant intervened,
he was also assaulted, resulting in a fracture of his left hand,
consequently, he was admitted in a hospital and subsequently
referred to PMCH, Patna.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have
falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel
submitted that to buy peace of mind, petitioners want to settle
the dispute amicably outside the Court in light of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78.
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
petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92081 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/8
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
observation made by the Apex Court recently in case of
Naushey Ali (supra), in paragraph nos. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92081 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/8
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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92081 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
5/8
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92081 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
6/8
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 petitioners have 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.
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
Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties to give effect to Mediation 2.0.
12. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92081 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
7/8
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 petitioners 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall continue and the trial shall
proceed in accordance with law.
16. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also,
petitioners are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92081 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
8/8
terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit
and proper.
17. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
18. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U T
Checking your session…