IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18017 of 2022

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Saran

======================================================

Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kumar Sah @ Manoj Kumar S/o Chandrabhushan Sah

R/o Village- Khaira, P.S.- Khaira, District- Saran

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

ORAL ORDER

2

13-07-2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2021 lodged under Sections 376 &

420 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the F.I.R., the admitted case of the informant

is that she was in relationship with the petitioner for a period

of last three years. It is also admitted in the F.I.R. that the

informant and petitioner were regular visiting Mandir and

Restaurant and occasionally used to visit Hotel for the purpose

of sexual relation. The cause for filing the present case has

arisen only in May, 2021, when informant received

information from the petitioner to marry at other person/girl,

thereafter this case has been instituted.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18017 of 2022(2) dt.13-07-2022

2/6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as

per allegation, the cause of action has arisen for filing the

present case was on 26.05.2021, F.I.R. has been typed and

signed on 11.07.2021, presented before the police on

15.07.2021 and produced before the Magistrate on

19.07.2021. Such delay has not been explained. It has been

further submitted that failure of promise in the year 2021,

which was made in the year 2018, may not be construed to

mean that the promise itself was false. He further submits that

petitioner has great apprehension relating to filing of such

type of case to create pressure for marriage and it is due to this

reason, the present petitioner has already filed an information

petition indicating the entire narrative on 03.06.2021 itself that

he and his family become subject to criminal case at the hand

of the present informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of

the court towards the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.

State of Maharashtra And Another reported in (2019) 9

SCC 608. Paras-18, 19 and 21 of the said judgment are as

follows:

“18. To summarise the legal position that emerges

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18017 of 2022(2) dt.13-07-2022

3/6

from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect

to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned

deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether

the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact”

arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be

established. The promise of marriage must have been a false

promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being

adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself

must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the

woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.

19. The allegations in the FIR indicate that

in November 2009 the complainant initially

refused to engage in sexual relations with the

accused, but on the promise of marriage, he

established sexual relations. However, the FIR

includes a reference to several other allegations

that are relevant for the present purpose. They

are as follows:

(i) The complainant and the appellant

knew each other since 1998 and were intimate

since 2004;

(ii) The complainant and the appellant met

regularly, travelled great distances to meet each

other, resided in each other’s houses on multiple

occasions, enga