Patna High Court
Pawan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the alleged conduct, being consensual between adults, does not constitute an offence under Section 69 BNS.
Summary
The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS No. 323 of 2025) alleging that he had a sexual relationship with the complainant on a false promise of marriage, an offence alleged under Section 69 of the BNS. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, that the complainant was a major who voluntarily married another person, and that no false promise of marriage was made, invoking Supreme Court precedents that consent and awareness negate criminality in such cases. The State opposed the bail, arguing the allegations constituted an offence. The Court examined the facts, noted the consensual nature of the relationship, the parties’ majority status, and applied the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ansaar Mohammad, Naim Ahamed and Amol Bhagwan Nehul, concluding that the allegations did not amount to a cognizable offence. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The petitioner was ordered to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and comply with procedural conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case alleging sexual relationship on false promise of marriage.
- Whether the alleged conduct falls within the ambit of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS given the consensual nature of the relationship and the parties’ majority.
- Whether Supreme Court precedents on promise of marriage and consent are applicable to deny criminal liability.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic (BNS) Act — s. 69
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- promise of marriage
- consent
- Section 69 BNS
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- rape law
- Supreme Court precedent
- Bihar criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33840 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2025 Thana- BELHAR District- Banka
======================================================
Pawan Kumar S/O Sikandar Yadav R/O Vill.- Choura P.S.- Belhar , Dist.
Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shubhesh Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.Parmanand Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Belhar P.S. Case No. 323 of 2025 for the
offence punishable under Sections 69 of the BNS lodged on
21.12.2025.
3. The prosecution case, as per the FIR, in brief, is
that the informant was allegedly subjected to sexual relationship
by the petitioner on several occasions on the false promise of
marriage and when she insisted upon marriage, the petitioner
along with his family members refused to solemnize the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to
personal grudge and has not committed any offence as alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33840 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
in the FIR. It is submitted that initially the petitioner and the
informant were in a love relationship, but subsequently the
informant decided to marry another person. After about three
months of her marriage, some bitterness arose between them
and upon returning from her matrimonial house, the present
false case has been instituted alleging that physical relationship
was established on the false promise of marriage. It is further
submitted that the informant herself had withdrawn from the
relationship existing between them and had voluntarily chosen
to marry another person. It is also submitted that the informant
is a major and now a married woman and was fully aware of the
consequences of her actions. The relationship, if any, was
consensual in nature and cannot legally be brought within the
ambit of rape. Learned counsel further submits that no false
promise of marriage was ever made by the petitioner. Lastly, it
is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage,
referring to the various judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ansaar Mohammad v. The State
of Rajasthan & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No. 962 of
2022 @ SLP (CRL) No. 5326 of 2022, Naim Ahamed v. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 and Amol
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33840 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 submits the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the aforementioned cases has held that the girl who alleged to
have established physical relationship with a person on the
promise of marriage is always aware of the consequences and
while being aware of such consequences, if such acts are
committed, then no criminality could be found out in such
relationship, which has been established with consent and both
the informant as well as the petitioner are said to be major and
are well aware of the consequences.
6. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
parties and taking note of the fact that both the victim and the
petitioner are major persons and the relationship appears to have
been consensual in nature, and further considering the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions,
this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four
weeks, from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33840 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Banka in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following
conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be
the family member/relative of the
petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear
on each and every date before the Trial
Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible
reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat
the witnesses or tamper with the
evidences, failing which the State shall
be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail
(iv) the petitioner shall desist
from committing any criminal offence
again, failing which the State shall be at
liberty to take steps for cancellation of
her bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.