Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36601 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2026 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Son of Late Yugal Kishor Tiwary Resident of Tiwary House, 1/M.I.G. 66, Behind Punjab National Bank, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, P.O.- Lohiya Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna (Bihar)- 800026, Aadhar No. 384175620978.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Vaishnavi D/o Ramesh Sharma Resident of Mohanpur, Near Punichak Pump House, P.O. and P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna (Bihar) 800023. ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr.Roushan Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is apprehending his arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 81 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 76, 78, 351 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the 'B.N.S.').

3. As per FIR, the petitioner alleged to capture obscene photographs of the informant while she was in relationship with the petitioner and when the informant married in the year 2026, petitioner alleged to threaten her

2/4 and also her in-laws family members that obscene photographs and videos would be made viral.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that obscene photographs, as alleged, was captured with consent while the informant was in relationship with the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner was married in the year 2025 and the informant was married in the year 2026 and, therefore, the allegation as to make the obscene photographs and videos viral is baseless and same appears to the extent of threat only without actual commission of offence. Arguing further, it is submitted that in fact there was some monetary dispute between the parties while they were in relationship, for which the petitioner had lodged a complaint case which is pending as Complaint Case No. 1344/2026. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant, while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that petitioner regularly disturbing and threatening the informant particularly after lodging the present FIR,

3/4 however, he conceded that till date no obscene photographs and videos, as alleged, was made viral.

6. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of the fact as FIR only suggest that only threat was given by the petitioner to make the photographs and videos viral, who admittedly was in relationship with the informant for long three years, accordingly, abovenamed petitioner, who is a man of clean antecedent, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-IX, Patna /concerned court in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 81 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.S.") and further condition:

That petitioner shall cooperate in investigation and shall not make any attempt to influence or threat the informant or any of the witnesses who are well

4/4 acquainted with the facts of the present case, failing which the informant/State shall be at liberty to press before the learned trial court itself for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner, which shall be disposed off by the learned trial court itself after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/- U T