IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2754 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2025 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== Amarjeet Kumar, Son of Late Badri Prasad Gupta @ Badri Sao, Resident of Digha Canal, P.O. and P.S. - Digha, District - Patna. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Maya Kumari, Daughter of Lal Babu Das, Resident of Village - Digha, Jamakharji, P.S. - Digha, District - Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 6 20-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual mode. 2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [in short the SC/ST (POA) Act] against the rejection of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026 2/6 prayer for bail vide order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court (Sadar), Patna in A.B.P. No. 2127 of 2025 in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section(s) 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the informant/respondent No. 2 has alleged that she got in touch with the accused/Amarjeet Kumar (appellant) through Facebook and they slowly fell into love. It has further been alleged that the informant/respondent No. 2 thereafter met with the appellant at the NEXA Maruti Showroom at Rupaspur, where the appellant is employed and, thereafter, they met on several occasions and the appellant proposed to marry the informant/respondent No. 2. 4. It has next been alleged that on 04.04.2024, the appellant and the informant/respondent No. 2 solemnized marriage in a hotel room and, thereafter, they indulged into physical relationship on several occasions and almost after one year, the appellant refused to marry the informant/respondent No. 2 and even blocked her mobile number. It has further been Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026 3/6 alleged that when the informant/respondent No. 2 went to meet the appellant at the Maruti Showroom, she was threatened of dire consequences and she was also abused with caste remarks. 5. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assisted by Mr. Vijay Anand, the learned Advocate, submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It has been submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it would be evident that the relationship of the appellant and the informant/respondent No. 2 was consensual and it lasted for more than one year, which also indicates that there was no coercion or threat on behalf of the appellant. It has further been submitted that the allegation of abusing the informant/respondent No. 2 by her caste name is also vague and no specific allegation under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act is made out against the appellant. It has next been submitted that the appellant had been helping the informant/respondent No. 2 out of old acquaintance and the said message had gone wrong with the informant/respondent No. 2, who has lodged the present case on false pretext of abusing her and utilizing her in the relationship in which they were indulged. It has, thus, been submitted that even if the allegations are taken on its face value, no case of any Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026 4/6 allurement on account of false promises of marriage is made out against the appellant and, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It has lastly been submitted that the appellant has clean antecedent. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/respondent No. 2, referring to the counter affidavit, has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the appellant and has submitted that he has induced the informant/respondent No. 2 and allured her into falling in love and, thereafter, taking advantage of her position, gained complete trust of the informant/respondent No. 2 and by giving false promises of marriage, established physical relationship with her. It has been submitted that the appellant had put Sindoor on the head of the informant/respondent No. 2 and, therefore, she had a very strong belief that the two were married and, therefore, she made physical relationship with the appellant and, now, when the appellant is back tracking from his promise, it amounts to cheating and abuse of the informant/respondent No. 2. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has also opposed the bail petition of the appellant. 8. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and taking into account the fact Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026 5/6 that there is no specific allegation of abuse against the appellant as per the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act and, thus, no case is made out against him and also the fact that from the plain reading of the F.I.R., it is evident that there is no assertion of forcing the informant/respondent No. 2 into physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage, let the appellant, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on his/her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors of the appellant shall be his/her close relative and the other shall be a local resident. (ii) The appellant shall remain physically present before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation. (iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions, without reasonable cause, or in violation of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026 6/6 the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the appellant will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned Court. (iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case, at any stage, it is found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation of his/her bail bonds. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above- mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. (v) The appellant shall in no manner threaten or try to contact or influence the informant/respondent No. 2. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order, referred to above, is set aside. 10. The appeal stands allowed. 11. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during trial. Sweta/Tannu/Praveen-II/- (Sourendra Pandey, J) U T