ORDER

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 420, 120(B), 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the first information report, indicates that a 36 years old informant (lady), Panchayat Raj Officer, posted at Siwan, lodged the present case against the 32 years old petitioner, who was unemployed then, that they were thrown together during coaching classes three years back and the acquaintance developed into an intimacy, followed by a proposal of marriage by the petitioner. Subsequently, they entered into physical relationship and the informant has alleged that she was sexually exploited on the pretext of marriage, which was subsequently denied by the petitioner.

4. Before going into the merits of the case, the preliminary objection to the grant of anticipatory bail raised by Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of informant, requires to be first addressed.

5. It has been submitted by way of an affidavit filed on behalf of the informant that the learned Court of S.D.J.M., Siwan was pleased to issue processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and in this regard order dated 01.07.2025 has been brought on record to show that the police moved the requisition for issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and the learned Court concerned passed order on the same day.

6. Learned senior counsel, on such development, has placed strong reliance on the case of Srikant Upadhyay vs. State of Bihar & Anr. being Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023 [: 2024 (3) BLJ 1 (SC)], wherein it was held that once the steps for proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and further proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated, the applicant is not entitled to invoke extraordinary power of the Court. Relying on the above mentioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been strongly contended that the present anticipatory bail of the petitioner is fit to be rejected since coercive processes have already been issued/ordered to be issued against him.

7. In response, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner, a government servant presently on the post of Assistant Collector, has throughout been present before the Courts seeking his legal remedies and the police, for extraneous reasons, in collusion with the informant, has managed to get the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. issued against the petitioner and has also got an order of the Court on its requisition for issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. However, the process under the aforementioned provision has neither been issued nor executed till date. It has also been submitted that, in the meantime, the petitioner has also preferred a criminal revision application, bearing Cr. Rev. No.140 of 2025, before the learned Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Siwan challenging the order dated 01.07.2025, whereby the requisition by the police for issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the same is pending adjudication.

8. It would appear from the records of the case that the first information report was lodged on 15.12.2024 and the anticipatory bail petition on behalf of the petitioner was filed before the learned Session Court in the month of December, 2024 itself and the prayer was rejected on 29.03.2025. Thereafter, an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS was filed before this Court on 09.04.2025 and the same remained pending on the cause list as it could not be taken up for consideration for no fault of the petitioner. However, the same was heard, upon the matter being mentioned to be taken up on priority basis. This would