Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Suman KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
REJECTED

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Suman Kumar, was arrested on 7 September 2025 in connection with FIR No. 138 of 2025 alleging that he had a physical relationship with the informant under a false pretext of marriage. The FIR was registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the victim’s recorded statement under Section 183 BNSS and a medical report indicating pregnancy. The court, after considering the seriousness of the allegation and the supporting evidence, refused the bail petition and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioner under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 given the nature of the allegations and supporting evidence?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • sexual assault
  • false pretext of marriage
  • pregnancy
  • Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
  • Section 69
  • Section 183
  • high court

Judgment

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85703 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2025 Thana- TIKAPATTI District- Purnia
               ======================================================
               Suman Kumar S/O Binay Mandal @ Vinay Kumar Mandal R/O Village -
               Mejhandi , P.S- Tikapatti , Dist.- Purnia     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
          1.    The State of Bihar
          2.    Nilam Kumari D/O Papu Mandal R/O Village - Mejhandi , P.S- Tikapatti ,
                Dist.- Purnia
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
               ======================================================
               Appearance :
               For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate
               For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
               For the Informant        :        Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
                                        :        Ms. Suman Kumari, Advocate
               ======================================================
               CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                     ORAL ORDER

3 25-03-2026                 Heard Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the

               petitioner, Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State

               and Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the Informant.

                              2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

               07.09.2025 in connection with Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025,

               FIR dated 27.08.2025 registered for the offence under Section 69 of

               the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

                              3. Allegation against the petitioner is that on

               26.08.2025 at about 12.30 A.M, he made physical relationship with

               the informant on false pretext of marriage.

                              4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

               that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

               implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation as
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85703 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026
                                                        2/3




                  alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not

                  committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R and the petitioner is

                  rotting in judicial custody since 07.09.2025.

                                   5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned

                  A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the

                  prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it appears from the

                  FIR that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner

                  and statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNSS

                  in which she has fully supported the case of the prosecution and

                  apart from that medical report of the victim suggest that on the date

                  of medical examination she was pregnant.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts, nature of allegation

                  supported by statement of the victim and medical report, I am not

                  inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with District

                  & Additional Session Judge-1st Purnea pending in the Court of

                  Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025.

                               7. Prayer is refused.

                               8. However the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite

                  the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-

U      T
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85703 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026
                                            3/3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.