Vishal Yadav @ Vishal Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4990 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Vishal Yadav @ Vishal Kumar Singh S/o- Adhinath Yadav R/v- Mopatpur PsRamgarh Dist- kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Priti Kumari D/o Bhikhari Kharwar Village Mopatpur P.S. Ramgarh Distt Kaimur at Bhaba ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the Informant :

Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 318(4), 126(2), 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant was in a relationship with the petitioner from 15.02.2020 to 2025. During this period, it has been alleged that the informant was sexually exploited by the petitioner on the pretext of

2/4 marriage, but subsequently he refused to perform marry with the informant. It is further alleged that when the informant's parents settled her marriage in the year 2022, the petitioner was instrumental in breaking the marriage by showing photographs on mobile. Again, the marriage of the informant was fixed on 02.06.2025, but this time also the petitioner prevailed and the marriage negotiations broke down.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the relationship between the petitioner and the informant continued for a fairly long period of time, i.e., about five years. Subsequently, for any reason, the marriage was not solemnized, the same would not give rise to an offence under Section 69 of the B.N.S. The relationship between the petitioner and the informant was consensual and the informant was major at the time of entering into the said relationship with the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner

3/4 continued to make physical relationship with the informant and subsequently, without any reason, he refused to perform marriage with the informant. The informant is also being harassed by the petitioner, inasmuch as he is having objectionable photographs with her and in the year 2022, the marriage of the informant with another boy got broken at the behest of the petitioner. In the year 2025 also the marriage of the informant with some other boy could not finalized due to false propaganda by the petitioner.

6. Regards being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the relationship of the informant with the petitioner continued for a fairly long period of time and there is no allegation in the FIR that from the very inception the intention of the petitioner was not to perform marriage with the informant, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail, subject to the condition that in future the petitioner shall not harass the informant, much less by showing any joint photographs of the petitioner with the informant.

7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

4/4

8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur), in connection with Mahila Police Station Case No. 72 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Siwani/- U T