Sanjit Kumar PathakversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36561 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2026 Thana- TARABARI District- Araria
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sanjit Kumar Pathak Son of Batesh Nath Pathak
           2.    Batesh Nath Pathak, son of Late Rameshwar Pathak.
                 Both are resident of village-Gharwari (gharnawari), P.S.-Tarabari, District
                 -Araria.
                                                                           ... ... Petitioners
                                                   Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.     Anupam Kumari, Daughter of Rajesh Mishra, Resident of village-Dabhra
                  Ward No. 10, P.S.- Tarabari, Dist- Araria
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Parties
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
                                                  Pragya Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s:        Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, Advocate
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-06-2026               Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   counsel for the State duly assisted by learned counsel

                   appearing for the informant.

                             2. Both accused-petitioners, named in the F.I.R., are

                   apprehending their arrest in connection with Tarabari P.S.

                   case No. 58 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable

                   under Sections 69, 351 (2) (3), 3/5 of the Bhartiya Nyay

                   Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’).

                             3. The allegation against the petitioners is to establish

                   physical relationship with informant, when she was 18 years
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36561 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
                                            2/4




          old for long continuous 8 years on false pretext of marriage,

          who finally refused to marry her when he became Assistant

          Loco Pilot in the year 2026.

                   4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner submitted that the informant is 26 years old and

          admittedly she was in relationship with the petitioner no. 1

          since last 8 years i.e. when she was 18 years old and was a

          major. It is submitted that as per the FIR, the first

          relationship was established in the year 2020 and the last

          was on 23.07.2025, which was alleged intentionally as to

          implicate this petitioner no. 1 under the provision of Section

          69 of the B.N.S., which is now independent offence. It is

          submitted that when the marriage of informant could not

          solemnized with petitioner no. 1 for any of the social

          reasons, he was implicated with present allegation with

          oblique motive, where the father of the petitioner who is

          petitioner no. 2 also implicated, without having any cogent

          reasons.

                   5.      While concluding argument, learned counsel

          submitted that if the version of FIR be believed the last
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36561 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
                                            3/4




          cause of action is of 01.03.2026 when the petitioner alleged

          to refuse marry with informant but FIR was lodged on

          14.04.2026 i.e. after one and a half month without having

          any just explanation qua the delay.

                   6.     Learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by

          learned counsel appearing for the informant, while opposing

          the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners submitted

          that the petitioner no.1 obtained the consent for physical

          relationship by adopting deceitful means and it was made

          only under assurance that the petitioner no.1 would marry

          informant but he refused after becoming Assistant Loco Pilot.

          Both petitioners claimed clean antecedent.

                   7. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions, as

          admittedly informant was in relationship with petitioner no.1

          since 2018 i.e. almost about eight years, where the FIR was

          lodged with delay of one and a half month after the last

          occurrence, without having any just explanation to the delay,

          accordingly, both above-named petitioners, in the event of

          their arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this

          order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36561 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
                                                       4/4




                     bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two

                     sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

                     learned J.M. 1st Class, Araria/concerned court in connection

                     with Tarabari P.S. Case No. 58 of 2026, subject to the

                     conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

                     Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

                     Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).


                                                       (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
    Sanjeet/-

U      T