IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21415 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ======================================================

Kiran Kumari Wife of G.M. Kumar Resident of Village- Israuli, P.S.- Marhaura, District- Saran, the then Posted in Rail District- Katihar, Rail P.S.- Jogbani, District- Katihar, Presently Working in DRSS Dial-112 at Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Subhash Chandra Gurjar S/o Hazarilal Gurjar R/o Village- Papda, Ward No.-

01, P.O.- Puhara, P.S.- Viratnagar, District- Jaipur, Rajsthan, Presently Posted at Diesel Shed, Malda Town, N.F. Railway, P.S.- Malda, district-

Malda (West Bengal)

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Samarjeet Singh, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Shashi Priya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

5 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred against the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Patna in A.B.P. No.8483 of 2023, by which the opposite party no.2 was granted anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite the fact that specific allegations have been made in the first information report with regard to the petitioner (informant) being subjected to sexual exploitation by blackmailing her on the pretext of making some objectionable video of her viral, the privilege of anticipatory bail has wrongly and erroneously been granted to the opposite party no.2. He has further submitted that the petitioner was not heard by the learned Court concerned at the time of granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2 and the Court has overlooked the relevant factors, which ought to have been taken into consideration for the purposes of granting the privilege of anticipatory bail inasmuch as the learned Court has not considered the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short ‘IPC’) which talks about consent being given under the fear or misconception and any consent having been given under such misconception would not amount to a consent in law. Further, the petitioner has been blackmailed by the opposite party no.2 on account of which she has transferred an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the account of opposite party no.2.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposes the present application for cancellation of anticipatory bail and defends the order granting bail to be an order based on substantial reasons, not warranting any interference by this Court. To the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard at the time of granting anticipatory bail, it is submitted that a bare perusal of the order itself discloses the falsity of the submission inasmuch as in the opening paragraph it is clearly stated that the learned counsel for the informant was heard. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submitted that order granting bail clearly indicates that the materials collected during the course of the investigation do not support the allegations made by the petitioner and such materials have been considered by the concerned Court in the correct perspective.

5. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and cursorily perusing the materials available on record, it is clear that the petitioner has raised the ground of perversity in the order granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2 by way of overlooking and not considering the rel