Patna High Court
Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to the stipulated bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, was charged under Sections 69, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for allegedly entering a physical relationship with a woman on a false promise of marriage and subsequently refusing to marry her. He contended that the relationship was consensual, both parties were adults, and he had a clean antecedent, seeking pre‑arrest bail. The State opposed the bail, arguing the allegations constituted an offence. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Naim Ahmed v. State and Sonu @ Subash Kumar v. State) emphasizing that a consensual adult relationship does not per se justify an FIR under serious offences. Accordingly, the court granted pre‑arrest bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with the order to lapse if other cases are found.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail for offences under Sections 69, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. arising from a consensual adult relationship based on a false promise of marriage
- Whether the Supreme Court judgments cited are applicable to the present facts
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482 of the B.N.S. are sufficient to safeguard the investigation
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 351(2), 482, 69
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- false promise of marriage
- consensual relationship
- B.N.S.
- Section 69
- Section 351(2)
- Section 3(5)
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15031 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-794 Year-2025 Thana- MANER District- Patna
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Son of Mahesh Prasad R/o Khaspur, P.S. - Maner, Danapur,
Chhitnawan, Patna, Bihar - 801502.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ginni Kumari, D/o Rajdeo Prasad, R/o Khaspur, PS- Maner, District- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Md. Ataur
Rahman, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Maner P.S. Case No. 794 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Section 69, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner
made physical relation with informant on the false promise of
marriage, and, thereafter, refused to marry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that when the relationship developed
between both the parties, they were major. From perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15031 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
complaint, it is apparent that both parties were in relationship
for quite sometime and enjoyed each other’s company for
months together and indulged in sexual act and as such, it
cannot be said to be induced or involuntarily. The relationship
was consensual. Petitioner has clean antecedent. On these
grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. The Apex Court has observed that “the complainant
was very much capable of understanding the consequences of
her action and if the relationship is not working out, the same
cannot be ground for lodging an F.I.R for the offence under
Section 376 of I.P.C” in case of Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 89 and in the case
of Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr., reported in 2021 AIR SC 1405.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest
bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned
District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15031 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur/successor
Court in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 794 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the
BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found
that the petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what
has been stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application,
this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…