Patna High Court
Akash kumar @ Aakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as the allegations of forceful abortion are not supported by any evidence.
Summary
The petitioner, Akash Kumar, sought pre‑arrest bail in a Mahila Police Station case alleging offences under Sections 85, 318(4), 89, 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, stemming from a complaint by a former partner who alleged cruelty and a force‑ful abortion. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, the alleged miscarriage was not medically documented, and the informant herself admitted she had not been examined by a doctor. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the FIR, the case diary, and noted the lack of any medical or forensic evidence supporting the claim of a forced abortion, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Naim Ahmed v. State (2023) that consensual relationships between adults do not, per se, constitute an offence. Finding the petitioner's antecedents clean and the allegations unsubstantiated, the Court held that a prima facie case for bail existed and ordered the petitioner’s release on pre‑arrest bail subject to bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offence of forceful abortion lacks medical evidence.
- Whether the allegations under the cited sections of the BNS and D.P. Act are substantiated enough to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean criminal record and the consensual nature of the relationship justify bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- forceful abortion
- consensual relationship
- lack of medical evidence
- Section 482
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60649 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Akash kumar @ Aakash Kumar Son of Garib Nath Sah Resident of Vill. -
Bishunpur Jagdish, Athar Bansman,P.S.- Mushahari, Dist.-Muzaffarpur,
Bihar, Pin-843118.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sarita Kumari D/o Javahar Sah Resident of Mohalla Akharaghat P S
Sikandarpur Dist Muzaffarpur Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anmol Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Anmol Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 85,318(4),89,351(2) of the
BNS and Section 3,4 of the D.P. Act.
3. Admitted fact of the case is that the informant was
in relationship with the petitioner in spite the petitioner having
got subsequently married in the year 2024. Thereafter, the
present FIR has been lodged by the informant on 21.01.2025 on
the ground of alleged cruelty and forceful abortion of the foetus,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60649 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
supported by her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and it is admitted
that informant was having consensual relationship with the
petitioner, in which course, both willingly cohabited, which led
to the informant to conceive, however, the miscarriage took
place. It is submitted that in absence of any medical report in
respect of miscarriage of foetus or forceful abortion, the
allegation against the petitioner cannot sustain that he was the
one who had forced the informant to abort the baby or he
forcefully got the baby aborted. No prescription or any medical
report is on record, nor the same is mentioned in the FIR.
Referring to paragraph no.58 of the case diary, learned counsel
submitted that the informant herself has admitted that she has
not got examined by a doctor. The petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. He submitted that the offence
is serious in nature and petitioner don’t deserve to be released
on pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60649 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
the FIR and the material which has surfaced in course of the
investigation, it is apparent that both parties were major and in
relationship for years together and never objected in any manner
and during the said period, they indulged in consensual sexual
relationship. Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex
Court in case of Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 89. I find that the allegation
of forceful abortion of foetus is not supported by any evidence
and in paragraph no.58 of the case diary, the informant herself
has admitted that she has not been examined by a doctor to
support the alleged forceful abortion. Further, it is evident that
the petitioner and informant were major and the informant
knowingly developed intimate relationship with the petitioner
for which she is herself responsible and when their relationship
became strained, the informant lodged the present FIR. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60649 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
satisfaction of learned J.M.F.C. Court no.-16, Muzaffarpur
(East) / Concerned Court in connection with Mahila P.S. Case
No. 02 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
has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application,
this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…