Patna High Court
Faisal Ahmad @ Md. FaisalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court disposed of the pre‑arrest bail application and directed the District Court to reconsider the matter applying the principles of the cited precedents.
Summary
The petitioner, a 20‑year‑old male, was charged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64(1), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable (BNS) Act for allegedly entering a physical relationship with a 19‑year‑old informant on a false promise of marriage and then refusing to marry. He applied for pre‑arrest bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual, both parties were adults, and he had a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted detention. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Naim Ahmed (2023) and Sonu @ Subash Kumar (2021), as well as the Madras High Court decision in Vijayalakshmi (2021), emphasizing that a consensual adult relationship does not ordinarily justify an FIR under serious offences. Consequently, the High Court directed the District Court to reconsider the bail application applying the principles of the cited cases and disposed of the petition without granting bail.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offence arises from a consensual relationship between two adults.
- Whether the FIR under the BNS Act is maintainable on the basis of a false promise of marriage.
- Whether the district court must reconsider its bail order in light of the principles laid down in Naim Ahmed and Vijayalakshmi.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable (BNS) Act — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(3), 352, 64(1)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- consensual relationship
- false promise of marriage
- age of majority
- BNS Act
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43815 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2025 Thana- GHURNA District- Araria
======================================================
Faisal Ahmad @ Md. Faisal Son of Habibur Rahman Resident of Village-
Babuan, Ward No. 12, P.S.- Ghurna, District- Araria, (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Jha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Ghurna P.S. Case No. 81 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64(1), 352,
351(3) and 3(5) of BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner
made physical relation with the informant on the false promise
of marriage, and, thereafter, refused to marry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged about 20 years
and the informant is aged about 19 years and from perusal of the
F.I.R., it is apparent that both the parties being major were in a
consensual relationship, during which they voluntarily entered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43815 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/3
into physical relationship, it cannot be said to be induced or
involuntarily. Learned counsel relying upon the law laid down
by the Madras High Court in the case of Vijayalakshmi & Anr.
vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. reported in
(2021) SCC OnLine Mad 317 further submitted that the
petitioner has just emerged as an adult being aged about 20
years and the victim is aged about 19 years and at this stage,
natural attraction for the opposite sex cannot be denied coupled
with the several psychological and physiological change a
person undergoes. The petitioner has clean antecedent. On these
grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. The Apex Court has observed that “the complainant
was very much capable of understanding the consequences of
her action and if the relationship is not working out, the same
cannot be ground for lodging an F.I.R for the offence under
Section 376 of I.P.C” in case of Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 89 and in the case of
Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
reported in 2021 AIR SC 1405.
7. Considering that the petitioner is aged about 20
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43815 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/3
years and the victim girl is 19 years old and they were in a
consensual relationship during which they entered into physical
relationship, I find that the learned District Court must
reconsider to pass fresh order by applying the principles laid
down in the case of Naim Ahmed (supra) and Vijayalakshmi
(supra) without being prejudiced by any observation made in
the present order and the impugned order.
8. The bail application, accordingly, stands disposed
of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.