Patna High Court
Anand Kumar GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Anand Kumar Gupta, applied for anticipatory bail in a case arising from a police complaint alleging that he deceived the informant by promising marriage, established a physical relationship, and subsequently abandoned her after taking her to another location. The prosecution charged him under Sections 140(3), 87, 64, 303(2), 81, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging offences related to deceit, kidnapping, and criminal intimidation. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, the informant was a major who voluntarily accompanied him, and the FIR was lodged after an unjustified delay, asserting that he was falsely implicated. The court examined the gravity of the alleged offences, the element of deceit and false promise of marriage, and found the allegations serious enough to deny anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged offences under Sections 140(3), 87, 64, 303(2), 81, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under the cited provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 140(3), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 64, 81, 87
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false promise of marriage
- deception
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal law
- section 140(3)
- section 303(2)
- section 351(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65899 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- Marnga District- Purnia
======================================================
Anand Kumar Gupta Son of Chandan Gupta Resident of Village - Dharhar
Jamuniya, Police Station - Dhamdaha, District - Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Seema Kumari Daughter of Pramod Sah Resident of village - Sahara, Police
Station - Maranga, District - Purnia
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-02-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Maranga Police Station Case No. 183 of 2025,
disclosing offences under Sections 140(3), 87, 64, 303(2),
81, 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that informant
alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner
allegedly established physical relationship with her. It is
further alleged that the petitioner threatened to solemnize
the marriage and forcibly took her to Chhapra, where he
communicated with his parents. Thereafter, he called her to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65899 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
Purnea but allegedly abandoned her there and fled along
with his friend, Prince. It is alleged that the informant’s
documents and a sum of Rs. 23,000/- were with his friend at
that time. When confronted, the petitioner reportedly
refused to marry the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner and the informant were in a consensual
relationship and that the informant, being a major, had
voluntarily accompanied the petitioner on 14.05.2025. Due
to family objections, the petitioner expressed his inability to
marry at that time and asked her to return home, which she
did. The F.I.R. was lodged after an unexplained delay of
eight days. It is thus submitted that no offence has been
committed and the petitioner has been falsely implicated
with ulterior motive.
5. Regards being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the
gravity of the offence and the allegation of physical relation
through deceitful means, including false promises of
marriage, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege
of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65899 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
6. In the result, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…