Patna High Court
Zobair AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the bail application cannot be granted as the allegations of sexual assault under the BNS are serious and must be examined in light of the victim’s statement and Supreme Court precedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Zobair Alam, was charged under several sections of the Bihar Special Laws (BNS) for allegedly entering a physical relationship with the informant on a false promise of marriage and subsequently refusing to marry her. He sought pre‑arrest bail, contending that the relationship was consensual, both parties were adults, and the informant habitually files false cases to extort money. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The court noted the trial court had taken the victim’s statement and cited Supreme Court judgments that a broken promise of marriage does not justify a charge of rape. It directed the trial court to re‑examine the victim’s statement in light of the Supreme Court precedent and dismissed the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail for offences under Sections 115(2), 69, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
- Whether the alleged false promise of marriage and consensual relationship negates the charge of sexual assault.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS should be given weight in the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) — s. 183
- Bihar Special Laws (BNS) — s. 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 69
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 406
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- false promise of marriage
- sexual assault
- consent
- victim statement
- Section 183 BNSS
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15103 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2025 Thana- BALTHAR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Zobair Alam S/o Sri Late Shekh Habibullah, Resident of Village- Narkatiya
Gauripur, P.S.- Purshotampur, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alexander Ashok, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Balthar P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 115(2), 69, 352, 351(2)
and 3(5) of BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner
made physical relation with the 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
F.I.R., it is apparent that both the parties were in relationship
and enjoyed each other’s company for about four years and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15103 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
indulged in sexual act and as such, it cannot be said to be
induced or involuntarily. The relationship was consensual.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the
petitioner.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the F.I.R., it is admitted case that the petitioner was in physical
relationship with the informant and the petitioner refused to
marry with the informant. In Para-7 of the bail application, the
petitioner has informed that the informant is in habit of lodging
false cases for extorting money and had also lodged an F.I.R.
bearing Purshotampur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2019 against one
Naushad Khan under Section 376 and 406 of the Indian Penal
Code and after that she has lodged the present F.I.R. against the
petitioner on similar allegation to extort money from him.
7. I have also perused the order impugned dated
03.02.2026, the trial court has taken into notice the statement of
the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS and has found that
the informant has supported the allegation.
8. The Apex Court has observed that “the complainant
was very much capable of understanding the consequences of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15103 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
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.
9. I modify the order to the extent that the learned trial
court is directed to peruse the statement of the victim recorded
under Section 183 BNSS and consider the case of the petitioner
in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Naim Ahmed
(supra) after analyzing whether the petitioner and the informant
were in relationship and the informant was aware of the result of
such promise which has been made by the petitioner
10. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.