Patna High Court
Vishal Yadav @ Vishal Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not harass the informant or display any joint photographs.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 69, 318(4), 126(2), 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging sexual exploitation and harassment of the informant, who claimed the petitioner broke off multiple marriage arrangements. The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual, the informant was an adult, and there was no intent to avoid marriage, thus no offence under Section 69. The informant contended that the petitioner used the promise of marriage to exploit her, harassed her with photographs, and interfered with her subsequent marriage plans. The court examined the duration of the relationship and the absence of a clear allegation that the petitioner never intended to marry, and consequently granted anticipatory bail with conditions prohibiting further harassment or the display of joint photographs. The bail order was conditioned on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations under Sections 69, 318(4), 126(2), 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the conduct alleged constitutes an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the petitioner's alleged harassment and interference with the informant's marriage justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 318(4), 3(5), 352, 69
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- sexual exploitation
- consent
- marriage interference
- harassment
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 69
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4990 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Vishal Yadav @ Vishal Kumar Singh S/o- Adhinath Yadav R/v- Mopatpur Ps-
Ramgarh Dist- kaimur at Bhabua
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priti Kumari D/o Bhikhari Kharwar Village Mopatpur P.S. Ramgarh Distt
Kaimur at Bhaba
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate
For the Informant : Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69,
318(4), 126(2), 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First
Information Report, is that the informant was in a
relationship with the petitioner from 15.02.2020 to 2025.
During this period, it has been alleged that the informant
was sexually exploited by the petitioner on the pretext of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4990 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
2/4
marriage, but subsequently he refused to perform marry
with the informant. It is further alleged that when the
informant’s parents settled her marriage in the year 2022,
the petitioner was instrumental in breaking the marriage by
showing photographs on mobile. Again, the marriage of the
informant was fixed on 02.06.2025, but this time also the
petitioner prevailed and the marriage negotiations broke
down.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the
relationship between the petitioner and the informant
continued for a fairly long period of time, i.e., about five
years. Subsequently, for any reason, the marriage was not
solemnized, the same would not give rise to an offence
under Section 69 of the B.N.S. The relationship between the
petitioner and the informant was consensual and the
informant was major at the time of entering into the said
relationship with the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submits that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4990 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
3/4
continued to make physical relationship with the informant
and subsequently, without any reason, he refused to perform
marriage with the informant. The informant is also being
harassed by the petitioner, inasmuch as he is having
objectionable photographs with her and in the year 2022,
the marriage of the informant with another boy got broken
at the behest of the petitioner. In the year 2025 also the
marriage of the informant with some other boy could not
finalized due to false propaganda by the petitioner.
6. Regards being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact
that the relationship of the informant with the petitioner
continued for a fairly long period of time and there is no
allegation in the FIR that from the very inception the
intention of the petitioner was not to perform marriage with
the informant, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege
of anticipatory bail, subject to the condition that in future
the petitioner shall not harass the informant, much less by
showing any joint photographs of the petitioner with the
informant.
7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4990 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
4/4
8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four
weeks, be released 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 Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur), in connection with
Mahila Police Station Case No. 72 of 2025, subject to the
condition laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…