Patna High Court
Nitin Raj @ Sonu @ SomuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitin Raj, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 69, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S.S., based on allegations by an informant that he had a non‑consensual relationship and recorded a video of her. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, that the informant’s complaint was false, and that there was no promise of marriage, arguing he would cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offences. The court examined the nature of the allegations, the lack of concrete evidence such as the alleged video, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and concluded that anticipatory bail could be granted with conditions. Accordingly, the court ordered anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond, sureties, and compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S., with the provision that bail may be cancelled if the petitioner fails to cooperate.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Whether the allegations under Sections 69, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S.S. constitute a prima facie case warranting denial of bail
- Whether the relationship alleged by the informant was consensual and thus a false complaint
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 351(2), 352, 482(2), 69
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false complaint
- consensual relationship
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- Sections 69, 352, 351(2) B.N.S.S.
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37910 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2026 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Nitin Raj @ Sonu @ Somu S/o Dharmendra Prasad @ Sukhu Resident of
Village - Ratanpura, P.S. - Islampur, District Nalanda, At present - Sheopuri
Ramchandrapur, P.S. - Laheri, Dist. - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 352
and 351(2) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that she came in contact with the petitioner through
facebook who works as ESM with Railways in Madhya
Pradesh. Further, the petitioner pressurised her to meet, thus,
they met at the room of the informant in October 2020, but her
landlord disclosed to her family members that a boy had come
to meet her in her room, thus, the informant disclosed about her
relationship with her family members. Further, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37910 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/4
assured her mother that he will marry her in 2024, thereafter
petitioner on pretext of marriage started establishing physical
relation and even made obsence video of the informant. Further,
the informant went back to village from Patna as she did not
qualify in competitive examination and the petitioner continued
with the relationship and even made WhatsApp call and used to
see her private parts and ultimately refused to marry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that she came in contact with the petitioner in
the year 2020 and thereafter the relationship continued and six
years after the commencement of the relationship, the instant
FIR came to be instituted. It is next submitted that the
relationship in between the petitioner and the informant was a
consensual relationship between two consenting adults. It is also
submitted that it does not appear probable that the informant
who claims that she was staying in Patna and was preparing for
competitive examination would not have realized in 5-6 years of
relationship that petitioner does not intend to marry. It is further
submitted that no doubt, petitioner and the informant were in a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37910 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/4
relationship but then there was no promise of marriage. It is next
submitted that whenever consensual relationship sours, a false
case is instituted. It is also submitted that in order to give
seriousness to the case, it is alleged that petitioner videographed
some of the occurrence but then no such video transpired during
the course of investigation. It is submitted that if the privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will
not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove
his innocence and will remain present before the Investigating
Officer of the case as and when required.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor
Court in connection with Jehanabad (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 10
of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37910 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
4/4
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
aunt, namely, Rinku Kumari.
8. However, it is made clear that if the Investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial
Court bringing to its notice that the petitioner, despite giving
assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the investigation,
the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.