IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46039 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali ====================================================== Md. Imran S/o Md. Salim Resident of Village- Bihari, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, Dist.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate Mr.Rajeev Ranjan No. II For the State : Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Informant : Mr. Pratik, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 3 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025, lodged on 15.11.2025 under Sections 69, 89, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against six named accused persons, including the present petitioner, alleging therein that the petitioner developed physical relations with the informant on the pretext of marriage, but subsequently refused to marry her and started threatening to kill her. It is further alleged that when the matter was brought to the knowledge of the family members of the informant, they also refused to accept the relationship. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46039 of 2026(3) dt.13-08-2026 2/4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 14.05.2026. He further submits that the principal provision invoked against the petitioner is Section 69 of the B.N.S., but the essential ingredients of the said provision are not attracted in the facts of the present case. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Jothiragawan Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police and Another, in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6821 of 2024, wherein, in a case involving similar allegations under Section 376 of the I.P.C., the proceedings were quashed vide judgment dated 24.03.2025. He further submits that, from the allegations made in the FIR itself, it is apparent that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the informant was consensual and was entered into voluntarily. However, the petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court in the event of his release on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46039 of 2026(3) dt.13-08-2026 3/4 specific allegation against the petitioner that he induced the informant into developing physical relations with him on the assurance of marriage. He further submits that the petitioner is not innocent and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the present case has been instituted under the provisions of the B.N.S., whereas the case considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was governed by the provisions of the I.P.C. It is submitted that the language and ingredients of Section 69 of the B.N.S. are materially different from the corresponding provision of the I.P.C. and, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner would not advance his case. 6. Learned counsel for the State also opposes the prayer for bail. However, he fairly submits that the informant has made a specific allegation against the petitioner regarding the development of physical relations on the pretext of marriage. He also supports the submission advanced on behalf of the informant that, after the enactment of the B.N.S., the ingredients of Section 69 are materially different from the corresponding provision of the I.P.C. 7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at present. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46039 of 2026(3) dt.13-08-2026 4/4 8. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025, pending before the learned SDJM, Vaishali at Hajipur is hereby rejected. Ashwini/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T