IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66452 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Shubham Kumar Sah S/o Dinesh Sah R/o - Biuni Andama, P.S - Fekla, District - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar No.1, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 18-09-2025 Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP representing the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 35 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 61(2), 81, 318 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged on 02.04.2025 by the informant Pooja Devi @ Pooja Kumari. 3. As per the complaint, the allegation is that earlier after offering her a packet of juice, when she lost consciousness, was raped and the videos were prepared. As the petitioner started blackmailing her, a panchayat was held and the matter was settled on his assurance. She got married subsequently to one Praveen Sah whereafter he continued the said blackmailing Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66452 of 2025(2) dt.18-09-2025 2/2 and in the process, uploaded the videos of her private moments on the facebook, ID details of which is part of the complaint. Once again, the panchayat took place but as the petitioner failed to stop his criminal act, having no alternative, the complaint. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that it was consented physical relationship, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP submits that the conduct of the petitioner of uploading the private moments of a married lady, repeatedly on the facebook coupled with the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedent. In that background, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. 5. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T