Patna High Court
Shravan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner in the rape and intimidation case.
Summary
Shravan Kumar was charged under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC for allegedly luring a young woman, forcing sexual intercourse, recording a video, and blackmailing her. The prosecution described a pattern of intimidation and repeated rape, while the defense argued the relationship was consensual, the complaint was filed after a long delay, and the medical report showed no recent injuries. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the lack of physical evidence, and a Supreme Court precedent that a broken consensual relationship does not automatically constitute rape. After weighing the facts, the judge decided to grant regular bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties. The bail order was conditioned on compliance with the court’s directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case involving alleged rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the absence of medical injuries and the claim of consensual relationship negate the prima facie case of rape.
- Whether the Supreme Court judgment in Ansar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan is applicable to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 506
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- criminal intimidation
- IPC
- consent
- delay in filing
- medical evidence
- blackmail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86581 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2025 Thana- GORIAKOTHI District- Siwan
======================================================
Shravan Kumar S/o Late Paspati Ram R/o Village - Mansa Hata, P.S -
Barhariya, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X (Imaginary name of the informant) D/o Y (Imaginary name of the
informant's Father) Resident of - Lillaro, Aurangabad, P.S - Goreyakothi,
District - Siwan
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
4 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant
came to contact in the petitioner in a family function. They
exchanged their numbers and the petitioner wished to establish
friendship with the informant and on this pretext, he also
pressurized the informant for establishing physical relationship.
He also assured the informant that he will marry her. On
03.01.2023, there was birthday in the family of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86581 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
The informant went there and the petitioner also arrived to meet
her and he told her elder sister that he will drop the informant to
her house on his bike, after this, he brought her to a shop and
kept her for many hours and after some time, he closed the
shutter of the shop from inside and attempted to make forceful
physical relationship. When the informant denied, he again
promised her to marry and established physical relationship.
After this, he also made video of that act and threatened her that
if she discloses it to anybody, she will have to face dire
consequences as the petitioner is having her obscene video. She
was administered anti pregnancy pill, after that, he started
calling her at medical shop and some times at his house on the
point of video, started physical relationship. It is further alleged
that when the informant undertook not to marry the petitioner
and she stopped calling the petitioner. After this, he started
abusing her and has stated that he will not allow her to marry
anywhere else and is also blackmailing the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relationship
between them was consensual and from perusal of the FIR
itself, it will transpire that according to the informant herself,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86581 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
the first date of relationship between them is 04.01.2023 but she
has filed this case on 16.04.2025 after more than year. Learned
counsel has further submitted that though it is stated by the
informant that the petitioner is not allowing her to marry
anywhere else and that he has broken her marriage but from
perusal of the diary, it will transpire that during entire
investigation, the informant has not stated as to with whom, her
marriage was fixed. It has further been submitted that this
statement is not substantiated during investigation. Learned
counsel has further submitted that during course of
investigation, the medical examination of the victim was
conducted and from perusal of the report, it will transpire that
the doctor conducting medical examination has found no recent
evidence of sexual and physical assault. No injury over perineal
area. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that
the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is
languishing in judicial custody since 25.09.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied
on a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2022 (@ SLP(CRL.) No. 5326 of
2022) in the case of Ansar Mohammad v. the State of
Rajasthan wherein their Lordships have held which is given
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86581 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
hereunder:-
“In view of the said fact, the complainant
has willingly been staying with the appellant
and had the relationship. Therefore, now if
the relationship is not 2 working out, the
same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR
for the offence under Section 376(2)(n)
IPC.”
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has
submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of
committing repeated rape and of blackmailing the informant.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Goreyakothi P.S. Case No. 130 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-VIII, Siwan.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 04.02.2026.
Uploading Date 25.02.2026.
Transmission Date 25.02.2026
Checking your session…