Patna High Court
Sourav Kumar Sah @ Sourav KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Sourav Kumar Sah and Gaurav Kumar Sah, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with FIR No.207/2024, which alleges offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 354A, 385, 506 and IT Act section 66(c). The informant alleges that a person named Shubham kidnapped her brother, forced her to make a sexual video, extorted money, and that the video was subsequently shared and made viral by Prem, with the petitioners also implicated in the viral spread. The petitioners contend they have clean antecedents, argue that the FIR was filed 100 days after the alleged incident, and maintain that the primary thrust of the complaint is against Shubham and Prem, not them. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing that the informant’s allegations that the petitioners helped disseminate the video are undisputed. After considering the submissions, the Court declined to extend anticipatory bail, finding the allegations sufficient to warrant custody. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be granted to the petitioners in view of the allegations under IPC and the IT Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354A, 385, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC
- IT Act
- sexual video
- extortion
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88538 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2024 Thana- SHAMBHUGANJ District- Banka
======================================================
1. Sourav Kumar Sah @ Sourav Kumar S/O Bhavesh Sah R/O Village-
Manjhgany, P.S- Shambhuganj, Distt.- Banka.
2. Gaurav Kumar Sah @ Gaurav Kumar S/O Muneshwar Sah @ Munna Sah
R/O Village- Manjhgany, P.S- Shambhuganj, Distt.- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Shahbaz Yusuf
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Choubey Jawahar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 30-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Shambhuganj P.S. Case No.207/2024, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 385, 506,
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(c) of the I.T. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that Shubham kidnapped her brother and thereafter made
a video call on whats-app of the informant on 20.03.2024 and
forced her to make a sexual video, further Shubham based on
that video, tried extorting an amount of Rs.1 lac from her, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88538 of 2025(3) dt.30-04-2026
2/4
protest, Shubham threatened to make the video viral, further
Shubham shared the video with his friend Prem, thereafter Prem
sent the said video to the informant from his mobile number as
detailed in the FIR and started forcing her to marry him or else
he will get her marriage fixed broken, further Prem got her
marriage broken based on the said inappropriate video by
sending it her would be husband, it is next alleged that thereafter
Shubham, Sourav (petitoiner no.1) and Gaurav (petitioner no.2)
made the video viral in the whole village.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that form perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the thrust
of the allegation is against Shubham and Prem and in the last
part of the FIR it is alleged that these petitioners were also
involved in making the video viral in the whole village. It is
further submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that
as to why the petitioners would have made the video of the
informant viral which was already made viral by Prem as
alleged in the FIR. It is also submitted that an FIR came to be
instituted by petitioner no.1 being Shambhuganj P.S. Case
No.201/2024 dated 27.06.2024 against the informant and her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88538 of 2025(3) dt.30-04-2026
3/4
family members alleging that they had assaulted him. It is next
submitted that after the FIR was instituted by Sourav, thereafter
the informant instituted the instant FIR on 30.06.2024 by way of
a counter blast. It is also submitted that the date of occurrence is
20.03.2024 and the FIR came to be instituted on 30.06.2024 i.e.
after a delay of 100 days and Rambalak Sharma has been
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated
17.07.2025 in ABP No.859 of 2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Banka.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that
what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that inappropriate
video of the informant was made viral. It is further submitted
that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it
would manifest that the thrust of the allegation no doubt is
against Shubham and Prem but then informant also alleges that
petitioners were also involved in making the video viral in the
entire village. It is also submitted that there is a delay in
instituting the instant FIR but then when it comes to character of
a woman, the family is not ready to face the society but then the
informant appears to be a bold lady, who instituted the instant
FIR. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 instituted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88538 of 2025(3) dt.30-04-2026
4/4
aforesaid case against the informant and her family members
alleging that they assaulted him. It is thus submitted that since
they were involved in the occurrence that may be a reason for
informant and her family members to go to the house of
petitioner no.1 for confronting him when the occurrence might
have taken place. It is also submitted that even marriage of the
informant got broken and her entire life stands jeopardized. It is
next submitted that the case of Rambalak Sharma is not akin to
the case of the petitioners.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
taking into considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners
is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…