Patna High Court
Ranjeet KarkattaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding that the alleged relationship was consensual and the charges did not preclude bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Karkatta, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging that he deceived a married woman by promising marriage, subsequently engaging in consensual physical relations, taking obscene photographs, blackmailing her, and assaulting her. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, lasted two years, and that the allegations were fabricated. The State and the informant opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner was charged with offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64, 308(2), 76, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The Court, after considering the submissions, noted that both parties were adults and the relationship appeared consensual, and therefore found no basis to deny bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order also stipulated that bail would be effective if arrest occurs within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of rape, assault, blackmail and taking obscene photographs
- Whether the alleged consensual relationship between two adults negates the applicability of the offences charged
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115, 126, 3, 308, 351, 352, 482, 64, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- consent
- rape
- assault
- blackmail
- obscene photographs
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4340 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2025 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia
======================================================
Ranjeet Karkatta Son of Late Jagava Urown Resident of Village- Chandan
Nagar Basantpur, Ward No. 36, P.S.- Sadar, District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 64, 308(2), 76, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant,
who is a married woman, alleged that she came in contact with
this petitioner before marriage and under the false pretext of
marriage, this petitioner established physical relations with the
informant and later on, refused to solemnize marriage. It is
further alleged that petitioner also took obscene photographs of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4340 of 2026(4) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
the informant and blackmailed her to make them viral and also
demanded money. It is also alleged that this petitioner assaulted
the informant and forcibly established physical relations with
her.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. The entire prosecution case, as set out in
the F.I.R., is out and out false, fabricated and concocted. As a
matter of fact, from bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is apparent that
both parties knew each other since long and with the passage of
time, relationship developed. At the time when the relationship
developed, both of them were major and were fully aware of the
consequences of such a relationship. The relationship was
consensual between two consenting adults and both of them
enjoyed each others company for two years. It is further
submitted that only because the relationship could not continue
and failed, the same does not amount to rape. Rest of the
allegations are ornamental in order to make the case grave.
Informant is a married lady aged about 31 years and is also
mother of two children. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4340 of 2026(4) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and
submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific
accusation that on the false pretext of marriage, this petitioner
established physical relations with the informant and later on,
refused to solemnize marriage and also assaulted and abused her
and blackmailed to make her obscene photographs viral.
6. Considering the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that from
bare perusal of the prosecution case it is apparent that at the
time when the relationship developed between the parties, both
of them were major and enjoyed each others’ company for two
years, the same cannot be said to be inducted or involuntary and
clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4340 of 2026(4) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
Purnea in connection with Kasba P.S. Case No. 281 of 2025,
subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…