Patna High Court
Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to monetary sureties and strict conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar, was arrested in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 for alleged offences under Sections 351(2) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which stem from an alleged promise of marriage followed by refusal. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had a physical relationship with the informant under the pretext of marriage and subsequently refused to solemnise the marriage, leading to the filing of an FIR on 22‑04‑2025. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the victim was a consenting adult who fell in love with him, and relied on Supreme Court precedents to argue that bail should be granted. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. After considering the facts, the period of custody, and the petitioner’s single prior criminal antecedent, the Court decided to grant bail subject to monetary sureties and strict conditions. The bail order required the petitioner to appear at every trial date, refrain from tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, and maintain sureties of Rs. 15,000 each.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under Sections 351(2) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS precludes the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior custody and criminal antecedent affect bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 351(2), 69
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 351(2)
- Section 69
- Section 183
- Mahila P.S.
- marriage promise
- victim statement
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79308 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
Amit Kumar S/O Mithu Mahto @ Mithu Prasad R/O Mohalla- Niche Bazar,
Roh, P.S- Roh, Distt.- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the informant : Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Gulnar Begum, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila
P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, instituted for the offences under
Sections 351(2) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that petitioner has
established physical relation with the informant on the pretext of
marriage. Subsequently, he refused to perform marriage with the
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He
further submitted that victim is major and she fall in love with
the petitioner. The occurrence took place in the year 2024 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79308 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
F.I.R. has been lodged on 22.04.2025. Charge-sheet has been
submitted in this case. In course of investigation, the victim
refused to perform medical checkups. The petitioner is alleged
to have established physical relationship on the assurance of
marriage. Subsequently, for one reason or the other, the
marriage could not be solemnized and for the said reason, the
present case has been instituted. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further placed reliance on cases of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court since reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC-3100
(Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of
Maharastra & Ors) and (2019) 9 SCC 608 (Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.). It
has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner
is in custody since 19.07.2025 and has one criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. The victim
in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS supported
the version of the prosecution.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, as also the period of custody undergone by the
petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79308 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
examination and cross-examination of the informant, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with
Mahila P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, subject to the following
conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be the petitioner’s own or
close member.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed during the trial and shall not remain absent on two
consecutive dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence or influence/intimidate any witness during
the course of trial.
In case of violation of any of the aforesaid
conditions, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…