Patna High Court
Chiranjivi Singh @ Chiran Jeebi SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.
Summary
Chiranjivi Singh was arrested in a case alleging that he sent obscene videos and photographs to a woman’s mobile phone, demanded Rs 10 lakhs, and received a gold chain worth Rs 2 lakhs. The petitioner claimed the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was filed after a financial dispute. He sought pre‑arrest bail, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Naim Ahmed v. State (2023) which held that consensual relationships can negate the seriousness of such allegations. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found a prima facie case for bail and ordered his release on pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and sureties, with a condition that the order would lapse if the petitioner has other pending cases. The court also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and encouraged the parties to settle their differences.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 77, 308(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.
- Whether the consensual nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the informant negates the seriousness of the alleged offences for bail purposes.
- Whether a prima facie case for bail exists in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 67(A)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- extortion
- obscene material
- consensual relationship
- Information Technology Act
- Section 482 CrPC
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48050 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Chiranjivi Singh @ Chiran Jeebi Singh Son of Gopal Charan Singh @ Gopal
Singh Resident of - Ward No.- 7, P.S.- Singhia Kuchia Bari, District -
Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate
Ms. Supriya Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
For the informant : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Abhigyan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash along with Ms.
Supriya Kumari, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned APP for the
State and Mr. Radha Mohan Singh and Mr. Abhijeet Abhigyan,
learned counsels for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Kishanganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 registered for
the offence(s) punishable under Sections
126(2),115(2),77,308(2),352,351(2),351(3),3(5), of the BNS and
Sections 67(A) of IT Act.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
informant/victim alleged that the petitioner had made her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48050 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
2/4
objectionable videos and photographs viral by sending them to
her home’s mobile phone. It is further alleged that when the
informant asked the petitioner to stop doing so, he demanded a
sum of Rs.10 lakhs, and thereafter she gave him a gold chain
worth Rs.2 lakhs.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case. From perusal of the FIR, it
is apparent that both parties were in relationship for quite some
time and enjoyed each other’s company for years together and
when the relationship developed between both the parties were
major. The relationship was consensual. In this regard, he has
placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of
Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC
Online SC 89. Learned counsel further submitted that informant
extended financial support to the informant when she was in
need of the same and when the petitioner later made a request
for the return of the said amount, certain differences arose
between the parties, which ultimately led to the lodging of the
present FIR. Petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and learned APP appearing on behalf of State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48050 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
3/4
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, it is evident that the petitioner and informant
were in relationship for quite some time and enjoyed each
other’s company for years together and when their relationship
deteriorated, the informant lodged the present FIR. In light of
law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Naim Ahmed
(Supra), I am of the opinion that petitioner has, prima facie,
made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj /
Concerned Court in connection with Kishanganj Mahila P.S.
Case No. 19 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found
that the petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48050 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
4/4
has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application,
this order will automatically lose its force.
9. However, the parties in order to buy peace of mind,
can negotiate with each-other.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…