Mojahid Islam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53727 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2025 Thana- RAMNAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Mojahid Islam S/O Late Khan Ayub Sheikh Resident of village- Sabeya, P.S.- Ramnagar, Dist.- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Hemant Ray, Adv Mr.Sharad Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Ray and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 61(2) (a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that she was in a relationship with the petitioner for about 7 years, further the petitioner was not ready to marry, as such the marriage of the informant was fixed with a boy of village Mathiya, but then the petitioner came and disclosed about his relationship an account of which the marriage could not be solemnized. It is further alleged that thereafter the
2/4 petitioner assured that he will marry the informant and used to come to her house and they spent time as husband and wife. It is next alleged that the petitioner went out for earning his livelihood and when he came back, his marriage was solemnized elsewhere, and when the informant approached him for marrying, the petitioner refused and also sent objectionable photos and videos of the informant to different persons with a intention to tarnish her image in the society. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the petitioner and the informant were in a relationship for last 7 years. It is also submitted that there was no promise of marriage. It is next submitted that the informant was already married to one Sallauddin Ansari in the year 2019 and out of wedlock, a child was born. It is next submitted that the petitioner was not aware that the informant was married from before, and when he came to know about the same, the relationship came to an end. It is further submitted that the relationship was purely consensual between two consenting adults and when the relationship soured, the instant FIR came to be instituted with
3/4 exaggerated allegations that the petitioner sent objectionable photos and videos of the informant to different persons but the name of the person to whom the photos or videos were sent, is not disclosed. It is also submitted that the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
5.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court 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 Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 15 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7.
However, it is made clear that in the event, if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner, despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the
4/4 investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. 8.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned police station through the learned Trial Court. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T