Patna High Court
Suman Tiwari @ Sumant TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to strict monetary and conduct conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Suman Tiwari, was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he entered into a false promise of marriage, maintained a seven‑year physical relationship, caused an abortion, assaulted the woman, demanded Rs 50 lakhs, and threatened her life. He was charged under Sections 64, 89, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner pleaded innocence, claimed the relationship was consensual, and highlighted his clean record, seeking bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the charge‑sheet. The Court, after considering the charge‑sheet, the period of custody, and the lack of prior convictions, decided to grant bail subject to monetary and conduct conditions. The order directed the petitioner to appear at all trial dates, refrain from tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, and provided for bail cancellation upon violation.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail jurisprudence for offences under Sections 64, 89, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- Does the alleged consensual nature of the relationship and the petitioner’s clean record justify granting bail?
- Are the conditions imposed by the Court sufficient to ensure the petitioner’s compliance and the integrity of the trial?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 183, 3(5), 351(2), 352, 64, 89
Subjects
- bail
- false promise of marriage
- consensual relationship
- assault
- extortion
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- Indian criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2393 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-896 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Suman Tiwari @ Sumant Tiwari S/o Ram Kishor Tiwari Resident of Village-
Chhparabahas, P.S.- Sugauli, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X D/o Naresh Singh R/o Village- Mahadeo, P.O. Maudah, P.S.- Sahiyara,
Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
Mr. Chetan Anand, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Motihari town P.S. Case
No. 896 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 64,
89, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that, on false promise
of marriage, the petitioner allegedly established physical
relations with the informant for seven years and got her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2393 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
pregnancy aborted; thereafter, he allegedly assaulted her,
demanded ₹50 lakhs for marriage, and threatened to kill her.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 06.09.2025
and has no criminal antecedent. On recovery, the statement of
the victim has been recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS in
which she has stated that the petitioner established physical
relations with her for seven years on the pretext of marriage.
The petitioner is alleged to have established physical
relationship on the assurance of marriage. Subsequently, for one
reason or the other, the marriage could not be solemnized and
for the said reason, the present case has been instituted. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the said relationship was
a consensual relationship between the parties. He has further
placed reliance on cases of the Hon’ble Supreme Court since
reported in 2018 SCC Online SC-3100 (Dr. Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar versus The State of Maharastra & Ors) and
(2019) 9 SCC 608 (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.). Learned counsel further submitted that
police, after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet
against the petitioner under Sections 64, 89, 126(2), 115(2), 352,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2393 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner
in the aforesaid Sections as also the period of custody
undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after
framing of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Motihari Town P.S.
Case No. 896 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be the petitioner’s own or a
close family member.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed during the trial and shall not remain absent on two
consecutive dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence or influence/intimidate any witness during
the course of trial.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2393 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions,
the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…