Rintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16667 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- Chhaudahi District- Begusarai ====================================================== Rintu Kumar Son of Shayam Narayan Mahto Resident of Village - Patla Amari, Ward No.12, P.S. - Chhuaurahi, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rani Chandra Prabha @ Shabnam Daughter of Jageshwar Prasad Resident of Village - Khadiaahi Ward No.04, P.S. - Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bijay Bhushan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 109, 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, registered in connection with Chhaurahi P.S.Case No. 119 of 2024.
3. As per allegation, the petitioner established physical relationship with the informant on the assurance of marriage.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage was not solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs, but was solemnized forcibly in the premises of the police station which is not acceptable to him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16667 of 2025(7) dt.19-01-2026 2/2
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for o.p.no.2 submits that the marriage was solemnized in a temple, situated in Bibhutipur police station premises and the rituals were performed. The counsel for the o.p.no.2 also submits that had the marriage been solemnized forcibly, the petitioner would have reported the entire episode to the higher authorities of the police.
6. Taking into account the entire aspect of the matter, especially the fact that the marriage of the petitioner with the o.p.no.2 has duly been performed, as per recitals available on the record, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T