Patna High Court
Manju DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage were not convincing and consequently granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Manju Devi, Vikash Prasad and Ravi Raushan Kumar, were arrested in connection with a rape case (Sugauli PS Case No. 196 of 2024) alleging that the complainant, a married woman, was deceived into a sexual relationship under a false promise of marriage. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual, an extramarital affair, and that the false promise of marriage does not constitute rape. Senior counsel relied on Supreme Court precedents (Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra) to support this view. The State could not refute these submissions. The High Court, finding the allegation of rape on false promise of marriage not convincing in view of the complainant’s existing marriage, ordered that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. The order directs surrender within four weeks if arrested.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC.
- Whether anticipatory bail is appropriate in the present circumstances.
- Whether the existence of a prior marriage of the complainant negates the charge of rape.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 314/34, 376
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- false promise of marriage
- extramarital affair
- IPC
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68577 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2024 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Manju Devi Wife of Vikash Prasad Resident of Village- Sugaui Devan
Chowk, Ward No 6, P.S. -Sugauli District -Motihari At East Champaran
2. Vikash Prasad son of Late Kuwar Pd. @ Karu Prasad Resident of Village-
Sugaui Devan Chowk, Ward No 6, P.S. -Sugauli District -Motihari At East
Champaran
3. Ravi Raushan Kumar son of Vikash Prasad Resident of Village- Sugaui
Devan Chowk, Ward No 6, P.S. -Sugauli District -Motihari At East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Anita Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioners, named in the F.I.R., are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Sugauli P.S.
Case No. 196 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 376, 313, 314/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per FIR, petitioners alleged to commit rape upon
the informant on false pretext of marriage who is a married
lady aged about 25 years and also mother of two childrens.
Allegation of abortion is also available against petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68577 of 2024(3) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
4. Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners submitted that from perusal of
face of FIR itself, it can be gathered safely that the informant
is a married lady and she herself deserted her husband. It is
pointed out that petitioners helped informant on several
occasion and out of that she developed some inclination
towards son of petitioner no.1 and 2 and therefore, forced to
solemnize her marriage with their son. It is submitted that
petitioners are parents and brother of main co-accused,
namely, Raj Raushan Kumar.
5. It is submitted that subsisting the first marriage,
forcing the son of petitioner no. 1 and 2 for marriage or to
alleged that relationship was established under false promise
of marriage is not appears convincing.
6 Mr. Singh further submitted that it is a matter of
extra marital affairs.
7. Arguing further, it is submitted by Mr. Singh that
any corporeal relations as established on the false pretext of
marriage cannot be termed as rape and in support of his
submission, he relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68577 of 2024(3) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
Court as available through Ansaar Mohammad Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 886
and also Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608.
8. Learned A.P.P. while opposing the prayer of
anticipatory bail of the petitioner could not disputed the
aforesaid factual and legal submissions as advanced by Mr.
Singh.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as subsisting first marriage, allegation
of informant to establish physical relationship with son of
petitioner no. 1 and 2 under false promise of marriage prima
facie appears not convincing, accordingly, above-named
petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a
period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1 st Class,
East Champaran, Motihari/concerned court in connection with
Sugauli P.S. Case No. 196 of 2024, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68577 of 2024(3) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short
“B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…