Raushan Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90663 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Madhubani ====================================================== Raushan Kumar Das Son of Madan Das Resident of Village- Arer Durga Mandir, P.S.- Patauna, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Priyanka Kumari D/o- Sri Shobhit Das R/o at - Bhauara Near Purani Durga asthan ward no. -6 P.S. - Nagar District - Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anant Kumar 1, App.
For the O.P. No. 2 :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Madhubani Mahila Police Station Case No. 46 of 2025, disclosing offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 137(2), 87, 64, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. As per the FIR, on 10.06.2025, while the informant was returning from R.K. College, Madhubani, after taking examination, petitioner along with 3 to 4 persons was waiting and kidnapped the informant in a car after making her unconscious with the help of some intoxicant material and when she regained her senses, she found herself in the house of co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90663 of 2025(3) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 accused Ranjit Kumar Das, who is brother-in-law of the petitioner. It has further been alleged that brother-in-law informed the victim that petitioner has performed marriage with her. The petitioner committed rape and sexual exploitation of the informant. Thereafter, the informant told the petitioner to perform marriage upon which the petitioner demanded Rs. 10 lakhs from the informant and asked her to bring the money from her parents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with concocted story. According to the FIR, the occurrence has taken place on 10.06.2025, but the FIR has been lodged after much delay on 23.07.2025. Between 10.06.2025 and 23.07.2025, no sanha and/or complaint regarding missing person was lodged by the parents of the informant. There was consensual relationship between the petitioner and the informant and the informant is major and is 20 years old. In fact, the informant eloped with the petitioner for the last two years and on her own sweet will, she moved from one place to another place with the petitioner. The victim herself pressurized the petitioner to perform marriage, but he refused and the present FIR has been lodged. The other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90663 of 2025(3) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 coordinate bench of this court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the FIR, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he kidnapped the informant and established physical relationship with her for so many days and when the informant told the petitioner to perform marriage, he refused to marry with her and raised exorbitant demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner and the severity of punishment and the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U T