Patna High Court

Ashraf Ansari @ Asraf Ansari @ AsrafversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Anticipatory bail was refused.

Summary

The petitioner, Ashraf Ansari, sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case (S. Case No. 235 of 2025) alleging an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had a sexual relationship with a married woman, exploited her, and refused to marry her after she became pregnant, constituting a criminal offence. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, that the woman was an adult and fully aware of the consequences, and that there was no coercion or false promise. The State relied on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, which supported the prosecution’s version. The court, considering the seriousness of the alleged offence and the victim’s statement, refused the petition for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita given the alleged consensual yet exploitative sexual relationship.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 183, 69

Subjects

anticipatory bail
sexual exploitation
consent
Section 69
Section 183
criminal law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13739 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2025 Thana- SRIPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Ashraf Ansari @ Asraf Ansari @ Asraf S/o Md. Hajrat Ansari @ Hajrat
                 Ansari @ Hazarat Ansari R/o Village - Bhanpur, P.S - Sripur (Shripur),
                 District - Gopalganj
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

                                2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in Sripur (Shripur) P.

                   S. Case No. 235 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable

                   under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

                                3. As per prosecution case, informant was married to

                   one Md. Lallan and had two children out of the wedlock. It is

                   alleged that husband of the informant used to beat her after

                   consuming liquor. In the year 2022, informant came in contact

                   with this petitioner and fell in love with him and thereafter, fled

                   to Kerala with him. When informant got pregnant and asked this

                   petitioner to marry her, he refused to do so. Informant alleges

                   that this petitioner sexually exploited her on the pretext of

                   marriage and when she became pregnant, he refused to marry.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13739 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
                                                        2/2




                      informant was major, married and mother of two children when

                      the relationship developed between the parties and was fully

                      aware of the consequences of such relationship which continued

                      for more than three years. He further submits that acts of

                      repeated intimacy and sexual relationship was consensual in

                      nature and was not established under any false promise, threat

                      or coercion and such, the same cannot be said to be induced or

                      involuntary. As a matter of fact, it is a case of prolonged love

                      affair between two consenting adults which has been given a

                      colour of forcible sexual intercourse with oblique purpose and

                      motive. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

                                   5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed

                      the bail application and submitted that victim in her statement,

                      recorded under Section 183 BNSS, has supported the

                      prosecution case and stated that she went to Kerala with him

                      and when she became pregnant, petitioner refused to marry her.

                                   6. In view of the gravity of the offence and statement

                      of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, prayer for

                      anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.



                                            (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…