Sweta DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90345 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2025 Thana- Vasudevpur District- Munger
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sweta Devi W/o Badal Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Mangal Bazar, P.S.-
                  Basudeopur, District- Munger
           2.     Badal Kumar S/o Late Tarkeshwar Mandal Resident of Mohalla- Mangal
                  Bazar, P.S.- Basudeopur, District- Munger
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   14-05-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.

                   Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 77 and

                   3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act.

                                3. The Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance

                   of the order dated 11.05.2026, is present in the Court.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners submits that petitioners have antecedent of two cases

                   and petitioner no. 1 is a woman and the cases were instituted by

                   the informant. It is further submitted that informant alleges that

                   a divorce case is pending in between her and her husband,

                   hence, she is staying at her parental home, hence, her elder sister
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90345 of 2025(5) dt.14-05-2026
                                            2/4




          (petitioner no. 1) and brother-in-law (petitioner no. 2)

          videographed her while taking bath with an intent to oust her

          from her parental home.

                       5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is the own sister of the

          informant and petitioner no. 2 is the husband of petitioner no. 1.

          It is further submitted that a dispute relating to property has

          ensued in between the informant and petitioner no. 1 for which

          Partition Suit No. 07 of 2022 is pending in between the parties

          in the Court of learned Sub-Judge-1, Munger. It is next

          submitted that informant is also contesting a divorce case with

          her husband and, thus, has tried to falsely allege against the

          petitioners that her inappropriate photograph was clicked with

          an intent to coerce them into submission so that petitioner no. 1

          does not pursue with the partition suit.

                       6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that by order

          dated 11.05.2026, the Investigating Officer of the case was

          directed to remain physically present with copy of case diary to

          assist the Court on the issue that as to whether any inappropriate

          photograph of the informant was made viral and also on the

          issue that as to whether inappropriate photograph of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90345 of 2025(5) dt.14-05-2026
                                            3/4




          informant was sent on the mobile of her husband.

                       7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, based on instruction,

          submits that during the course of investigation, it transpired that

          petitioner no. 2 herein clicked and made inappropriate video of

          the informant and sent the same on the mobile number of the

          husband of the informant, namely, Jitendra who in-turn sent the

          said inappropriate photograph and video to the informant, as

          stands recorded at para 32 and 33 of the case diary.

                       8. It is further submitted that it absolutely does not

          stand to reason that when the informant is contesting a divorce

          case with her husband why the petitioner no. 2 sent her

          inappropriate picture to her husband.

                       9. Learned A.P.P. fairly submits that the inappropriate

          picture was not made viral and role of petitioner no. 1 in the

          occurrence has not transpired.

                       10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

          let the petitioner no. 1, above-named, in the event of his arrest

          or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be

          released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of

          Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where

          the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90345 of 2025(5) dt.14-05-2026
                                                       4/4




                     Basudeopur P.S. Case No. 93 of 2025, subject to the conditions

                     as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the

                     B.N.S.S.

                                  11. However, the Court is not inclined to extend the

                     privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 2, above-

                     named, in connection with the aforesaid case. Hence, his prayer

                     for anticipatory bail is rejected.

                                  12. The personal appearance of the Investigating

                     Officer of the case is dispensed with.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T