IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91440 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== 1. Sunil Tanti @ Sunil Kumar S/o- Late Naresh Tanti R/v- Milkichak-2, Ps- New Ramnagar Dist- Munger 2. Kiran Devi W/o- Late Naresh Tanti R/v- Milkichak-2, Ps- New Ramnagar Dist- Munger ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 356(2), 294(2), 308(2), 64(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that she came in contact with Sunil Tanti on Instragram and thereafter she started talking with the accused. She further alleged that Sunil Tanti captured her nude photographs on the mobile phone and thereafter he sent the said video on her mobile phone and pressurized her to establish physical relationship, failing which he will made the video viral on social media sites and also share the same to her relatives. It is further allleged that when she contacted Kiran Devi (the mother of the accused) and requested her to ask her son to delete those photos and videos, upon which Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91440 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/2 which she made demand of Rs.50,000/- and when she refused to pay the money, her nude photos and videos were made viral by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent. The entire prosecution story is false, fabricated and concocted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 and the informant was in contact with each other since 2022. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the fact that there is a serious allegation against the petitioners of capturing nude photographs and videos of informant on the mobile phone and threatening her to make it viral on social media sites and also sharing the same to her relatives and further demanding an extortion of Rs.50,000/-, the Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Gaurav Sinha/- (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) U