IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90227 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria ======================================================

Sarfraz Son of Nasimuddin Resident of village- Jathwara Pathraha, Ward No.

14 Police Station- Ghurna, Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Ravish, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 69, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, coaccused Balajim gave a call to the informant offering her loan and told her that she would require to go to Bangalore for getting the loan and thereafter the informant went to Bangalore with coaccused and this petitioner. Further allegation is that the coaccused sold the informant to this petitioner for Rs.25000/-. The petitioner assured the informant that he would marry her but later on refused and the informant returned to her home. Panchayati was held but ultimately the petitioner did not marry the informant and married some other girl.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent. Informant is a major girl and she was already married to one Shamsuddin. During investigation one of the witnesses has stated that the informant was in love with coaccused Balajim and was having an affair and she voluntarily went to Bangalore. When she had a quarrel with the coaccused, she came to this petitioner seeking help and the petitioner advised her to return home and also provided her money for travel. When the husband of the informant refused to take her back, she again approached this petitioner. There is no allegation of any sexual assault or establishing physical relationship with the informant by the petitioner giving her allurement of marriage. The whole prosecution story appears to be false that the informant went to Bangalore as the pretext is not believable. There is unexplained delay of more than five months in lodging the FIR. Even in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS there is no allegation of any sexual overt act against this petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 27.09.2025 and he is a man of clean antecedent.

Charge sheet has been submitted.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of allegation and material against the petitioner and also considering his clean antecedent, period of custody of the petitioner and submission of charge sheet against him, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria/concerned court, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned. (Arun Kumar Jha, J)

Anuradha/