Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
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 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
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
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)
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
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