IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70735 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1053 Year-2023 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ======================================================

Abhinash Kumar aged about 21 years (M) Son of Raghunandan Prasad, resident of Village- Musharshavda PS -Mohanpur Distt- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rajesh Kumar Prabhakar S/o- Late Rajkuleshwar Singh Narayan Chua PS-

Vishnupad, Dist-Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

3 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Paras Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Rama Kant Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Barachatti Town P.S. Case No. 1053 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506/34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in 2018 the informant, while on leave at his native village, entered into a land transaction with the accused persons. Initially, pursuant to a proposal made by accused Kavita Verma and others, an agreement for sale dated 08.05.2018 was executed for purchase of 3 decimals of roadside land situated at Village Musarshavda for a total consideration of ₹6,00,000/-. An advance amount of ₹4,25,000/- was allegedly paid to co-accused Raghunandan Prasad and Vikash Kumar, duly acknowledged in the agreement. Subsequently, on a further proposal, the informant agreed to purchase an additional 9 decimals of land and allegedly paid a total sum of ₹16,00,000/- to co-accused Kavita Verma and Vikash Kumar, including ₹5,00,000/- through cheques dated 29.06.2018 and 03.07.2018 drawn on ICICI Bank. Despite receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the accused persons allegedly failed to execute the sale deed and instead absconded from their residence. Upon being approached by the informant on 06.11.2023 for either execution of the sale deed or refund of the consideration amount, the accused persons allegedly abused and criminally intimidated him and refused to return the money. The prosecution thus alleges commission of offences involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 be referred for mediation.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.

No.2 and learned APP for the State jointly submitted that opportunity shall be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably.

6. The petitioner’s counsel also informs that he has received instruction that the petitioner also wants to reconcile 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 F.I.R., 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 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 secur