Patna High Court
Ziyaul Ansari @ Jayaullah AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, given the consensual nature of the relationship between two adults, anticipatory bail should be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Ziyaul Ansari, was implicated in a FIR alleging that he deceived an informant with a promise of marriage, forced sexual relations, recorded videos, demanded a dowry of Rs.5 lakh, and threatened to circulate obscene material. He sought anticipatory bail, contending that the relationship was consensual, both parties were adults, and no offence was committed. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the allegations constituted offences under several sections of the B.N.S., including rape and dowry harassment. The Court examined the facts and noted that the parties had a consensual relationship for a year and were of legal age, concluding that the allegations did not amount to involuntary sexual assault. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions and a bail bond. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., allowing the petitioner to be released on bail if arrested within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of rape, dowry demand, and threats under Sections 69, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the alleged sexual relationship was consensual and thus does not constitute an offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- consent
- rape
- dowry demand
- threat
- video recording
- adult relationship
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19622 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2025 Thana- BELA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ziyaul Ansari @ Jayaullah Ansari S/O Abdul Gani Mohammad Resident Of
Village- Khurshaha, Ward No.- 11, P.s.- Bela, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar , Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 126(2),
115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that this petitioner
used to talk to the informant on mobile phone and on the
promise of marriage, he forcibly established physical relations
with her and said her not to disclose the ordeal to anyone. This
petitioner continued to establish physical relations with the
informant on the pretext of marriage for a period of one year
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19622 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/4
and also made videos of the incident. Thereafter, when the
informant pressurized this petitioner to solemnize marriage, he
started demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry and also threatened
to make her obscene videos viral on social media and
subsequently, refused to solemnize marriage.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. The entire prosecution case, as set out in
the F.I.R., is out and out false, fabricated and concocted. As a
matter of fact, from bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is apparent that
both parties knew each other since long and with the passage of
time, relationship developed. At the time when the relationship
developed, both of them were major and were fully aware of the
consequences of such a relationship. The relationship was
consensual between two consenting adults and both of them
enjoyed each others company for one year. It is further
submitted that only because the relationship could not continue
and failed, the same does not amount to rape. Rest of the
allegations are ornamental in order to make the case grave.
Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19622 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/4
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and
submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific
accusation that on the false pretext of marriage, this petitioner
established physical relations with the informant and later on,
refused to solemnize marriage.
6. Considering the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that from
bare perusal of the prosecution case it is apparent that at the
time when the relationship developed between the parties, both
of them were major and enjoyed each others’ company for one
year, the same cannot be said to be inducted or involuntary and
clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Sitamarhi in
connection with Bela P.S. Case No. 151 of 2025, subject to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19622 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
4/4
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…