Patna High Court – Orders
Faiz Ali Rumi vs The State Of Bihar on 25 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2036 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2024 Thana- JALE District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Faiz Ali Rumi Son of Anish Ahmad Raja village- Katraul, Ps- Jalky, Dist-
Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. x Daughter of Md. Jilani village- Bhuara, Ps- Kamtaul, Dist- Darbhanga
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6 25-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 376, 312,
504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation in the first information report is that the
prosecutrix had met with the petitioner in the train, whereafter
the petitioner came to her house and both got engaged and the
date of marriage was fixed after six months i.e. on 10.01.2024.
It is further alleged that she went to the house of the petitioner
on 18.08.2024, upon his calling, where she was given
intoxicant and when she regained her consciousness, she found
herself in an objectionable condition. It is further alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2036 of 2025(6) dt.25-06-2025
2/4
the accused was demanding some money from the prosecutrix
and upon showing her inability to give the same, the petitioner
assaulted her and also denied to marry her.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the informant is a married lady, having two daughters from the
first marriage, and the said fact was concealed from the
petitioner. It would be appear from the first information report
itself that she was aged about 29 years and she had met with
the petitioner in the train. It was her informed and conscious
choice to go to the house of the petitioner and also of
performing marriage with him. Further submissions on behalf
of the petitioner is that the allegations of making videos etc
does not find support from the materials collected during the
course of investigation and there is no trail of any money
transaction as alleged by the prosecutrix. It would appear from
the medical examination report of the victim/ prosecutrix that
there are no findings which are suggestive of any recent sexual
intercourse and no evidence of any pregnancy in the
ultrasonography and the pathology report. It is also submitted
that but for mentioning June 2023 as date of marriage proposal
and 10.01.2024 as the date fixed for marriage, no other dates
have been mentioned in the FIR and hence the FIR is extremely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2036 of 2025(6) dt.25-06-2025
3/4
vague as to when the alleged occurrence actually took place
and why the same was not reported to the police, thereby
making the entire allegation suspicious. The present case was
lodged, after an unexplained delay, on 07.10.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the informant opposes the grant of
anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations made in the
first information report are supported by the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further
submitted that the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was also
issued against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by filing a
supplementary affidavit has brought on record that the
petitioner got the knowledge of process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. on 10.01.2025, whereas the process was issued, as per
the records, on 20.12.2024. However, the petitioner had already
taken recourse to the legal remedies and had moved for grant of
anticipatory bail before the learned Court below on 24.11.2024
itself, just after one month of the FIR and much before the
issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Asha Dubey vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh (Cr. Appeal No.4564 of 2024) in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2036 of 2025(6) dt.25-06-2025
4/4
regard stating that there will be no total embargo on
consideration of grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case as also the fact that the prosecutrix is 29 years old
married lady, who has taken a voluntary decision to go to the
house of the petitioner the other considerations of proposed
marriage and absence of corroborative medical evidence, let the
above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Jale P.S. Case No.187 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid
down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T