Patna High Court
Nitish @ Aditya Kumar @ Nitish Kumar @ Aditya Raj KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, was named in an FIR (Mahila P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025) for alleged offences under sections 126(2), 115(2) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, based on a complaint by Sarita Kumari that she, a married woman, had a consensual relationship with the petitioner and was abandoned on a railway platform. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual, he has no prior criminal record, and that no injury or formal complaint was lodged against him. The informant contended that the petitioner lured a married woman and abandoned her, constituting a criminal act. The Court examined the FIR, noted the consensual nature of the adult relationship, the petitioner’s clean record, and the lack of evidence of injury, and therefore decided to grant anticipatory bail. The bail was conditioned on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., and several conduct requirements, including cooperation with investigation and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR constitute a non‑bailable offence warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 69
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- consensual relationship
- adultery
- bail conditions
- marital status
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6857 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda
======================================================
Nitish @ Aditya Kumar @ Nitish Kumar @ Aditya Raj Kumar S/O Dwarika
Paswan R/O Vill.- Hargawan, P.S.- Manpur, Dist.- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Ravi Bhushan Prasad no.1, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur duly assisted by Ms.
Sushmita Mishra, learned counsels for the petitioner and Mr.
Ravi Bhushan Prasad no.1, learned counsel for the informant
beside Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025 for the alleged offence
under sections 126(2), 115(2), 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 lodged on 17.11.2025 by the informant, Sarita
Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that she got married with one Vikash Paswan in the year 2011
and was preparing for the examination at Biharsharif. There, she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6857 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
met with this petitioner and thereafter, they developed intimacy
for each other and finally culminated into physical relationship.
They assured each other that if any of them gets employment,
they will live forever. Later, the petitioner got government job,
they stayed in a hotel the entire night but later, on the pretext of
going to Delhi, he left her stranded at the railway platform. As
she came to know that he intends to get married, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
perusal of the FIR would show that she is a married lady, adult,
having complete knowledge of consensual relationship and
further knows that unless divorced, she cannot enter into the
second marriage. There is nothing on record to show that when
she was thrown out of the train as alleged, whether she suffered
any injury and/or a complaint was lodged with the local G.R.P.
The last submission is that the petitioner got employment, has
no criminal antecedent, if relief not granted, will prejudice his
future as he has just got an employment.
5. Learned counsel for the informant opposes the
prayer submitting that on the pretext of marriage, he lured the
married lady and entered into the physical relationship. Further,
she was also thrown out of the train.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6857 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
parties as also the content of the FIR which clearly shows that
two adults entered into a consensual relationship, the lady is
married, this petitioner has no criminal antecedent as submitted
above, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him
the privilege of anticipatory bail
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.
163 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as
also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police
station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6857 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
9. Before parting, this Court would like to put on
record its word of appreciation for Ms. Sushmita Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner for the proper assistance
rendered by her.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…