Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail as the FIR discloses only a threat and the petitioner has a clean antecedent, subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, was named in an FIR for allegedly capturing obscene photographs of the informant, Vaishnavi, during a prior relationship and threatening to make them viral after her marriage. The FIR invoked Sections 76, 78 and 351 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner argued that the photographs were taken with consent, no material was actually disseminated, and the case stemmed from a monetary dispute, seeking anticipatory bail on the basis of a clean antecedent. The State contended that the petitioner continued to harass and threaten the informant, justifying denial of bail. The court, after considering the submissions, concluded that the FIR disclosed only a threat and, given the petitioner’s clean record, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond, sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged threat to make obscene photographs and videos viral constitutes an offence under Sections 76, 78 and 351 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the allegations, considering the claim of consent and lack of actual dissemination.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the nature of the alleged conduct justify the grant of bail with conditions.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 76, 78
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- obscene photographs
- threat
- consent
- criminal law
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Section 351
- Section 76
- Section 78
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36601 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2026 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Son of Late Yugal Kishor Tiwary Resident of Tiwary House,
1/M.I.G. 66, Behind Punjab National Bank, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, P.O.-
Lohiya Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna (Bihar)- 800026, Aadhar No.
384175620978.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vaishnavi D/o Ramesh Sharma Resident of Mohanpur, Near Punichak Pump
House, P.O. and P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna (Bihar) 800023.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr.Roushan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar
P.S. Case No. 81 of 2026 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 76, 78, 351 of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’).
3. As per FIR, the petitioner alleged to capture
obscene photographs of the informant while she was in
relationship with the petitioner and when the informant
married in the year 2026, petitioner alleged to threaten her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36601 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
2/4
and also her in-laws family members that obscene
photographs and videos would be made viral.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that obscene photographs, as alleged,
was captured with consent while the informant was in
relationship with the petitioner. It is submitted that
petitioner was married in the year 2025 and the informant
was married in the year 2026 and, therefore, the allegation
as to make the obscene photographs and videos viral is
baseless and same appears to the extent of threat only
without actual commission of offence. Arguing further, it is
submitted that in fact there was some monetary dispute
between the parties while they were in relationship, for
which the petitioner had lodged a complaint case which is
pending as Complaint Case No. 1344/2026. Petitioner
claims clean antecedent.
5. 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 petitioner, submitted
that petitioner regularly disturbing and threatening the
informant particularly after lodging the present FIR,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36601 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
3/4
however, he conceded that till date no obscene photographs
and videos, as alleged, was made viral.
6. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and
by taking note of the fact as FIR only suggest that only
threat was given by the petitioner to make the photographs
and videos viral, who admittedly was in relationship with
the informant for long three years, accordingly, above-
named petitioner, who is a man of clean antecedent, in the
event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks
from this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned A.C.J.M.-IX, Patna /concerned court in
connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 81 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.”) and further
condition:
That petitioner shall cooperate in investigation and
shall not make any attempt to influence or threat the
informant or any of the witnesses who are well
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36601 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
4/4
acquainted with the facts of the present case, failing
which the informant/State shall be at liberty to press
before the learned trial court itself for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioner, which shall be
disposed off by the learned trial court itself after
giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.