Ambika Sao @ Ambika Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2026

    0
    4
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Patna High Court – Orders

    Ambika Sao @ Ambika Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2026

    Author: Purnendu Singh

    Bench: Purnendu Singh

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18781 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1900 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
                                                              Gaya
                     ======================================================
               1.     Ambika Sao @ Ambika Prasad S/o Late Indradeo Sao R/o Village -
    
                     Gurudwara Road, P.S - Kotwali, District - Gaya.
               2.    Mukhlal Sao @ Mukhlal Prasad Gupta @ Mukhlal Gupta S/o Late Indradeo
    
                     Sao R/o Village - Gurudwara Road, P.S - Kotwali, District - Gaya.
    
                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                          Versus
               1.    The State of Bihar
               2.    Kameshwar Sao S/o Late Indradeo Sao R/o Village - Dumrichatti, P.S -
    
                     Fatehpur, District - Gaya.
    
                                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
                     ======================================================
                     Appearance :
    
                     For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Onkar Nath, Advocate
    
                     For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
    
                     For the Informant        :       Mr.Abhijeet Abhigyan, Advocate
    
                     ======================================================
                     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                           ORAL ORDER
    
    5   15-07-2026

    Heard Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel appearing on

    behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, learned

    SPONSORED

    APP for the State and Mr. Abhijeet Abhigyan, learned counsel

    appearing on behalf of the Informant.

    2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection

    with Complaint Case No. 1900/2023 registered for the

    offence(s) punishable under Sections

    323,341,342,379,120B,420,467,468,471 of the IPC.
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18781 of 2026(5) dt.15-07-2026
    2/6

    3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the

    petitioners, in conspiracy with the co-accused, fraudulently

    transferred the ownership of the complainant’s truck by forging

    his signature on the No Objection Certificate and thereafter

    assaulted and threatened the complainant.

    4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

    petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have

    been falsely implicated due to a family and property dispute. He

    submitted that the complainant himself was aware of the

    proposed sale of the vehicle since September, 2021 and had

    executed a notarized agreement acknowledging the transaction.

    He further submitted that the complainant had himself obtained

    the N.O.C. from Tata Motors and had participated in the transfer

    process after receiving consideration. Learned counsel also

    submitted that the complaint has been instituted after an

    unexplained delay of more than two years. The matter primarily

    relates to monetary transaction between the parties and for

    amicable settlement of dispute between the parties outside the

    Court, the matter be referred for mediation.

    5. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the

    State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for

    amicable settlement outside the court.

    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18781 of 2026(5) dt.15-07-2026
    3/6

    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 28.07.2026.

    7. Heard the parties

    8. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf

    of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on

    record, it appears that the specific allegation against the

    petitioners is of forging the signature of the complainant on the

    No Objection Certificate and fraudulently transferring the

    ownership of the truck bearing Registration No. BR-02Q-6476

    in favour of a third person, though the dispute has arisen

    between real brothers. Considering the relationship between the

    parties and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I

    am of the opinion that an opportunity deserves to be given to the

    parties to settle their dispute 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
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18781 of 2026(5) dt.15-07-2026
    4/6

    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 petitioners have willingly desired to appear

    before the learned District Court on or before 28.07.2026, so

    that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.

    12. Learned District Court is directed to issue notice

    to O.P. No.2 and take necessary steps to 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

    for the Nation 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
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18781 of 2026(5) dt.15-07-2026
    5/6

    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 petitioners 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 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.

    15. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to

    appear on 28.07.2026 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.

    16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the

    complainant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim

    protection granted to the petitioners 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,

    petitioners are directed 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.18781 of 2026(5) dt.15-07-2026
    6/6

    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
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here