Patna High Court

Arsalan @ Md. ArsalanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The anticipatory bail petition is rejected as the petitioner’s conduct falls within the ambit of Section 69 of the BNS.

Summary

The petitioner, Arsalan, was named in an FIR for allegedly establishing a physical relationship with the informant's daughter under false pretence of marriage, an offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. The petitioner argued that the victim was a consenting adult and that the relationship was consensual, seeking anticipatory bail. The State contended that the consent was obtained deceitfully and that the offence, being a distinct provision under the BNS, does not consider consent a defence. The victim’s recorded statement under Section 183 of the BNSS corroborated the allegation of false promise of marriage. The court examined the factual submissions and the statutory provisions, concluding that the petitioner's conduct attracted liability under Section 69. Consequently, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 69 of the BNS when the alleged offence involves a false promise of marriage.
Whether the victim's consent, as recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, negates the applicability of Section 69.
Whether the offence under Section 69 is a distinct offence that precludes bail on the basis of consent.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 69
BNSS — s. 183

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false promise of marriage
consent
Section 69 BNS
Section 183 BNSS
criminal law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32017 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2024 Thana- TARAPUR District- Munger
                 ======================================================
                 Arsalan @ Md. Arsalan S/O Md. Saifuddin @ Saifuddin R/O vill.-
                 Ibrahimpur, Gajeepur, P.s.- Tarapur, Dist.- Munger.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Asiya Begum W/O- Md. Pervez R/O- Vill- Ibrahimpur, Gajipur, P.S.-
                 Tarapur, District- Munger

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Md.Najmul Hodda, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 For the Informant        :      Mr. Sitanshu Shekhar Singh, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

7   06-01-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and

                   apprehending his arrest in connection with Tarapur P.S.

                   Case No. 305 of 2024 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 69 of BNS.

                                3. The allegation against petitioner is to

                   establish physical relationship with daughter of the

                   informant on false pretext of marriage.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing

                   on behalf of the petitioner that the victim was major at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32017 of 2025(7) dt.06-01-2026
                                            2/3




          the time of occurrence and the relationship was

          consensual, however, it is fairly considered that same

          attract an offence under Section 69 of the BNS. It is

          submitted that victim while recording her statement under

          Section 183 of BNSS categorically stated that she out of

          her own consent established relationship with petitioner.

          While concluding arguments, it is submitted that

          petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

                       5. Learned APP duly assisted by Mr. Sitanshu

          Shekhar Singh learned counsel for the informant while

          opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the offence

          alleged is a distinct offence introduced first time through

          BNS. It is submitted that the consent is not a material

          aspect to consider as same was obtained by deceitful

          means under the garb of false promise of marriage. It is

          pointed out that aforesaid fact was duly supported by

          victim while recording her statement under Section 183

          of BNSS.

                       6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32017 of 2025(7) dt.06-01-2026
                                                          3/3




                        taking note of fact as the occurrence as alleged duly

                        supported by victim while recording her statement under

                        Section 183 of BNSS, that petitioner established

                        relationship with her on false pretext of marriage,

                        accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of above-

                        named petitioner stands rejected.



                                                                 (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…