Patna High Court
Abhishek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the allegations establish an offence under section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and therefore denied anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhishek Kumar, was arrested in connection with a FIR alleging that he had a consensual relationship with the informant/victim but obtained her consent through a false promise of marriage, leading to a pregnancy that was terminated. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual, the victim was an adult, and there were contradictions in her statements and lack of convincing evidence of abortion. The State opposed the bail, presenting evidence of deceitful consent, the victim’s statements under sections 180 and 183 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, and a recorded statement of the victim’s father about the pregnancy termination. The court examined the credibility of the victim’s testimony, the CCTV evidence, and the legal precedent on section 69 of the B.N.S., which criminalises consent obtained by deceit. Concluding that the allegations established an offence under section 69, the court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail, while allowing him to apply for regular bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.
- Whether the alleged physical relationship obtained by false promise of marriage constitutes an offence under section 69 of the B.N.S.
- Whether contradictions in the victim's statements affect the credibility of the allegations.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR is a material factor in granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 180, 183, 3(5), 69, 88
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false promise of marriage
- deceitful consent
- pregnancy termination
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- section 69
- criminal law
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6086 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2024 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar Son of Dharmesh Prasad Resident of Village - Shobhan
Tara, P.S. - Khanpur, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr.kaushal Kishore, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bishweshwar Ram, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
10 07-01-2026 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Kaushal Kishore, learned counsel appearing for
the informant and Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, learned APP for the
State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Warishnagar P.S.
Case No. 202 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 69, 88, 3(5) of the Bhartiya
Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’).
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to establish
physical relationship with the informant/victim on the false
pretext of marriage.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6086 of 2025(10) dt.07-01-2026
2/6
counsel appearing for the petitioner that relationship of
petitioner with the informant/victim was consensual, who was
admittedly major aged about 22 years and was in relationship
with the petitioner for long two years.
5. It is pointed out that during course of investigation
several witnesses supported that petitioner falsely implicated
with the present case. It is further pointed out that during
investigation, it transpires that informant/victim was not visited
the nursing home on the date which she claimed to visit for her
medical termination of pregnancy as per CCTV footage of said
hospital. It is submitted by learned counsel that in view of non-
convincing allegation of abortion, the allegation of physical
relationship also prima facie false on its face.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the statement
of victim also appears contradictory to the extent of period of
relationship and also the place where said relationship were
established on multiple occasions with the petitioner, which
further makes the occurrence doubtful on its face.
7. In view of aforesaid submission, learned counsel
relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. State of West
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6086 of 2025(10) dt.07-01-2026
3/6
Bengal and Another reported in (2025) 5 SCC 749 and also
relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court
as available through Prem Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
through Station House Officer reported in 2024 SCC
Online Chh 10471.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by Mr.
Kaushal Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the
informant/victim, while opposing the prayer of anticipatory bail
of the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was in relationship
with the informant/victim for long two years and out of said
relationship, she became pregnant, which was terminated after
seven weeks, upon persuasion of this petitioner to get it
terminate on assurance to solemnize marriage with her
thereafter only.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Kishore that in furtherance of
same, the pregnancy of the informant/victim was terminated
with changed name namely, Ms. Muskan Kumari, in Life
Imagine and Diagnostic Centre, Samastipur on 6th of December,
2023.
10. In support of this fact, learned counsel qua
informant drawn attention of this Court towards statement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6086 of 2025(10) dt.07-01-2026
4/6
father of the informant/victim recorded during course of
investigation, where he also stated that after termination of
pregnancy the physical condition of his daughter was
deteriorated and thereafter he and other family members came
to know that informant was in relationship with the petitioner
and her medical complexities arising out of termination of her
pregnancy.
11. It is further pointed out that the contradiction as
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
appears minor in nature i.e. regarding duration of relationship
and also regarding the place where relationship established
between the informant and petitioner, but starting from FIR up-
to 183 B.N.S.S. statement recorded by the informant/victim
including statement under section 180 of the B.N.S.S.,
allegation qua physical relationship and also the termination of
pregnancy appears consistent and there is no variation on this
score.
12. Arguing further, it is submitted that the offence
under section 69 of the B.N.S.S. is a distinct offence where the
consent, if obtained with deceitful means, is sufficient in itself to
attract the offence punishable under section 69 of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6086 of 2025(10) dt.07-01-2026
5/6
It is submitted that factual aspect of this case categorically
stated that consent of the informant/victim was obtained by
deceitful means under false promise of marriage.
13. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the FIR in issue was lodged with an
unexplained delay of about one month.
14. Taking note of the aforesaid submission, learned
counsel for the informant/victim submitted that aforesaid delay
was due to assurance of marriage arising out of local
panchayati. It is also pointed out that the last occurrence took
place on 18.07.2024, when the informant/victim visited to the
house of petitioner, where she and her family members were
assaulted by the family members of petitioner and only after 26
days the present FIR was lodged on 14.08.2024. The aforesaid
delay is well explained which is a normal delay in rural area and
on the basis of delay of just 26 days, it cannot be said that
allegation was lodged as a matter of an afterthought for false
implication.
15. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of the fact as the allegation as to establish physical
relationship on false pretext of marriage is specifically available
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6086 of 2025(10) dt.07-01-2026
6/6
against this petitioner which is consistent throughout FIR,
statement of informant/victim recorded under Section 180 of
the B.N.S.S. as well as section 183 of the B.N.S.S. where non-
finding of convincing material qua abortion does not lead to
conclusion ipso facto that no physical relationship as alleged was
established by deceitful means under false promise of marriage
for which distinct offence first time was introduced in B.N.S.S.
under section 69, accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail of the
petitioner stands rejected.
16. However, petitioner be at liberty to pray for regular
bail before the court concerned, which be decided in accordance
with law without being prejudiced by this order.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…