Vinit Singh @ Vinit Kumar @ Binit Singh @ Binit Kumar @ Jayvardhan Singh @ Jayvardhan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72921 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-362 Year-2019 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Vinit Singh @ Vinit Kumar @ Binit Singh @ Binit Kumar @ Jayvardhan Singh @ Jayvardhan Son of Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Singh R/o Village - Milki, P.S. - Gangtamore @ Gantamore, Dist. - Munger, Presently Residing at Semariya, P.S. - Jasidih, Dist. - Deoghar (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pratik Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-02-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is aged about 30 years and in sum and substance, the informant alleges that petitioner established physical relation on false promise of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that informant is a divorcee and was having a child and the relationship in between the petitioner and the informant started
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72921 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026 2/3 in the year 2015 when petitioner was aged about 19 years and informant was aged about 25 years. It is further submitted that relationship was in between two consenting adults. It is next submitted that since informant was a divorcee with a child, as such, the petitioner right from the beginning had made it clear that the relationship will not materialize in marriage. It is also submitted that the relationship in between the petitioner and the informant started in the year 2015 and the FIR came to be instituted in the year 2019, as such, the FIR was instituted after four years of relationship, as such, it cannot be presumed that informant was not able to gaze that petitioner does not intend to marry her. It is further submitted that whenever such relationship sours, false case is instituted. It is next submitted that 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, let 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/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72921 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026 3/3 (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 Rajivnagar P.S. Case No. 362 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T