Kishan Yadav @ Krishna Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52896 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Katihar ====================================================== Kishan Yadav @ Krishna Kumar Yadav S/O Late Prithvi Yadav R/O VillageKantakosh, P.S.- Manihari, Dist.- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025 registered under Section 64(1) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner made physical relation with the informant on the false promise of marriage, and, thereafter, refused to marry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that when the relationship developed between both the parties, they were major. From perusal of the F.I.R., it is apparent that both the parties were in relationship for quite some time and enjoyed each other's company for months
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52896 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/3 together and indulged in sexual act and as such, it cannot be said to be induced or involuntarily. The relationship was consensual. Petitioner has clean antecedent. On these grounds the petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. The Apex Court has observed that "the complainant was very much capable of understanding the consequences of her action and if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be ground for lodging an F.I.R for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C" in case of Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 89 and in the case of Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2021 AIR SC 1405.
7. The learned District Court is directed to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, 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, Katihar/successor Court in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52896 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 3/3 Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioner, as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically. (Purnendu Singh, J) Ashishsingh/- U T