Ranjan Rajbanshi @ Ranjan Rajvanshi @ Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39717 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-530 Year-2024 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Ranjan Rajbanshi @ Ranjan Rajvanshi @ Ranjan Kumar, S/O Gorelal Rajvanshi @ Lochan Rajvanshi, R/O Village- Fatehpur, P.S. - Akbarpur, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Gautam Singh, S/O- Late Mohan Singh R/O Vill- Fatehpur, P.S.- Akbarpur, District- Nawada ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Kumud Kishore, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-09-2025 Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 530 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 78, 79, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the petitioner used to tease his daughter on her way to school and circulated her obscene photographs. It is further alleged that the petitioner also threatened his daughter and wife, due to which his daughter stopped going to school.

4. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39717 of 2025(4) dt.03-09-2025 2/2 counsel are that the victim is a major girl and her age is more than 18 years and in fact, there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false. It is lastly submitted that among the offences under which the FIR has been registered, the maximum prescribed punishment is three years.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner and submits that this petitioner used to tease the informant's minor daughter aged about 15 years and took the victim's obscene photographs using his mobile phone and thereafter, threatened the victim and her family members, due to which the victim girl had to stop going to school and finally, the obscene photographs of the victim were made viral by the petitioner.

6. Considering the seriousness of the allegation appearing against this petitioner from the FIR as discussed above and also taking note of the petitioner's criminal antecedent of one case, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T