Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Summary
Petitioner Pankaj Kumar Gupta was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime FIR alleging that he photographed and filmed an intimate relationship with the informant Ishita Kumari and forwarded the material to her prospective in‑laws, causing the marriage to collapse and the videos to go viral. The FIR, registered under Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act and several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, led the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual and the complainant was a major. The State opposed, emphasizing the non‑consensual distribution of the material and the seriousness of the offences. The High Court examined the allegations and the statutory provisions and concluded that anticipatory bail could not be granted. However, the Court directed that if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks and files a regular bail application, the matter would be considered promptly.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the Information Technology Act and the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 351(2), 351(4), 352, 356(2), 75, 77, 78, 79
- Information Technology Act — s. 66E, 67, 67A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Information Technology Act
- privacy violation
- voyeurism
- cyber crime
- video leakage
- consensual relationship
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13392 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Saran
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Gupta Son of Krishna Sah @ Krishna Pd.
Sah Resident Of Village -Bhimpurwa, Ps -Mahmmadpur, Dist -Gopalganj
Presently Resident at Mahamadpur, Ps- Mahamadpur, Dist- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manager Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 24-06-2026 Heard Mr. Manager Shah, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP representing
the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Saran Cyber P.S. Case No. 123 of 2025
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 66E, 67 and
67A of the I.T. Act as also 75, 77, 78, 79, 356(2), 352, 351(2)
and 351(4) of the B.N.S., lodged on 16.04.2025 by the
informant Ishita Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that she met the petitioner in a marriage ceremony, they came
closer and in the process established physical relationship.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13392 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
However, he snapped certain photographs and also made videos
and then her marriage was settled with other boy, those
photographs/videos were forwarded to the would be in-laws
which resulted into breakup of the marriage. The videos became
viral and left with as such, she was forced to lodge this FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
girl is major, both entered into relationship knowing fully well
and only to ensure that the petitioner solemnized marriage with
her, the present FIR.
5. Learned APP Mr. Bharat Bhushan, on the other
hand opposes prayer submitting that the allegation is beyond the
physical relationship inasmuch as photographs/videos were
prepared and it was forwarded to the would be in-laws which
resulted not into only breakup of the marriage, the videos also
became viral.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the
informant subsequently has submitted petition before the court
concerned to make Section 67 of IT Act compoundable. These
are the facts which can be addressed by the court concerned
when the petitioner seek bail after surrender.
7. Taking into account aforesaid facts, no relief can be
extended to the petitioner, the anticipatory bail application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13392 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
stands rejected.
8. However, if the petitioner surrenders within a
period of four weeks, files bail application, the court concerned
shall consider the matter and dispose it of preferably on the
same day.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/Ankita
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.