Patna High Court
Roshan KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as the alleged act was a consensual relationship between adults and there is no prior criminal antecedent, in line with Supreme Court precedents.
Summary
Roshan Kumar was arrested in connection with a case under Section 69 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, alleged to have engaged in a sexual relationship with the informant on a false promise of marriage and subsequently refusing to marry. The petitioner sought pre‑arrest bail, arguing that both parties were adults, the relationship was consensual, and he had a clean criminal record. The State and the informant opposed the bail, contending the allegations warranted detention. The Court, relying on Supreme Court judgments that a complainant capable of understanding her actions cannot base an FIR under Section 376 IPC solely on a failed relationship, granted pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and verification of antecedents. The bail order was conditioned on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and a four‑week surrender period, and the application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case alleging a consensual sexual relationship under Section 69 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
- Whether the complainant's capacity to understand her actions negates the applicability of Section 376 IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and verification of criminal history affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 69
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- consensual relationship
- false promise of marriage
- Section 69 BNS
- Section 376 IPC
- criminal antecedent
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80594 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Roshan Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar (Wrongly referred as Mahendra in
F.I.R.)R/O Vill.- Purani Chatti, Ward no. 12, P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Saloni Kumari D/o Sanjay Saw R/o Vill and Post- Shyam Nagar Nisa, P.S.-
Barahbigha, District- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 04-05-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Sherghati P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Section 69 of BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner
made physical relation with the informant on the false promise
of marriage, and, thereafter, refused to marry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that when the relationship developed
between both the parties, they were major. From perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80594 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
F.I.R., it is apparent that both the parties were in relationship for
quite some time and enjoyed each other’s company for months
together and indulged in sexual act and as such, it cannot be said
to be induced or involuntarily. The relationship was consensual.
Petitioner has got clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and learned APP for the State have vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. The Apex Court has observed that “the complainant
was very much capable of understanding the consequences of
her action and if the relationship is not working out, the same
cannot be ground for lodging an F.I.R for the offence under
Section 376 of I.P.C” in case of Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 89 and in the case of
Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
reported in 2021 AIR SC 1405.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the F.I.R. and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the
petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest
bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court
below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80594 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
3/3
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with
Sherghati P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C / 482(2) BNSS.
8. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner
is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-
3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its force.
9. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…