Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar BhartiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted subject to the condition that the trial court verify that charges have been framed and that the petitioner complies with the bond and surety requirements.
Summary
Chandan Kumar Bharti was arrested on 17 November 2025 in connection with offences under Sections 69, 294 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., alleged to have established a physical relationship with the informant by falsely promising marriage. The petitioner, claiming a clean antecedent and that the relationship was between consenting adults who were both of majority age, sought regular bail. The State opposed bail, but could not effectively rebut the claim of consensual adult relationship. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification that charges have been formally framed. The order also warned that the trial court may cancel the bail if the petitioner attempts to delay the trial. Consequently, the bail application was allowed with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 69, 294 and 351(2) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the alleged relationship constitutes a consensual adult relationship that negates the criminal allegations
- Whether the charges against the petitioner have been formally framed, affecting the bail order
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 294, 351(2), 69
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- consent
- false promise of marriage
- Section 69 B.N.S.
- Section 294 B.N.S.
- Section 351(2) B.N.S.
- charge framing
- trial court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8361 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- JANKINAGAR District- Purnia
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Bharti Son of Dev Naryan Mehta @ Deo Narayan Mehta
Resident of Village - Sahuriya Subhai(Subhay) Milik ward no. 09, P.S.-
Jankinagar, District - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ambrish Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh
Mr.Shambhu Sharan Singh
Mr.Rima Sahay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 69, 294 and 351(2)
of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is in custody since 17.11.2025 and is a
person with clean antecedent. It is submitted that in sum
and substance the allegation is petitioner on pretext of false
promise of marriage established physical relation with the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8361 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/4
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
FIR was instituted in the Year 2025 when victim was 23
years of age and alleges that she was in a relationship with
the petitioner since 2020 i.e. the relationship started when
the victim was 18 years of age and thus was a major. It is
also submitted that it does not appear probable that in five
years the victim would not have realized that petitioner does
not intend to marry. It is also submitted that relationship
was in between two consenting adults and whenever such
relationship sours a false case is instituted with an
allegation that physical relation was established. It is also
submitted that charges have been framed and if privilege of
regular bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond rather
will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.
4. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail
application, but then, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant is not in a position to rebut the
submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner that relationship in between petitioner and the
informant was consensual and was in between two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8361 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/4
consenting adults.
5. Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the
petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail
on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the
case is pending in connection with Jankinagar P. S. Case
No.103 of 2025.
6. The application stands allowed.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release
is trying the delay the trial in any manner, the learned Trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that though a submission
has been made that charges against the petitioner stands
framed but then the order of framing charge has not been
brought on record.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8361 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
4/4
9. It is made clear the learned trial Court before
releasing the petitioner shall verify that as to whether
charges against the petitioner has been framed or not and if
it is found that charges against the petitioner has not been
framed in that event the present order granting bail shall not
be given effect to, but if charges have been framed in that
event the petitioner shall be released forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…