Rakesh Ranjan Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73837 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2025 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rakesh Ranjan Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Ram Dular Yadav R/o Village - Kamlabari Goth, P.S - Jainagar, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 76, 79, 308(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act, 2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that she was enrolled with Rakesh Mathematics Coaching Centre. Further, Rakesh Rajnaj Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav (petitioner) who was a teacher also had evil eye on her and used to act inappropriately finding her alone. On objection, Rakesh used to assault her. It is further alleged that out of fear of the society, she did not disclose about his inappropriate behabivour. It is next alleged that landlord of the coaching centre Kuldip
2/4 Singh along with Sonu Chaudhary used to pressurize her to make a video of Rakesh so that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs can be extorted. Further, about 20-25 days back, Kuldip and Sonu intercepted her and Sonu on point of pistol threatened to make a video of Rakesh or else she will be killed and pushed her inside the coaching institute where Rakesh was present from before, thus, she put the mobile on a window with video on. Thereafter, Rakesh on seeing her came and held her and started acting inappropriately but saw the mobile and, thus, grabbed the same and started fleeing but was caught by Kuldip and Sonu who snatched the mobile and transferred the video in their mobiles and deleted the video from the mobile of the informant and gave the mobile back to the informant.
Further, out of fear, she did not disclose about the occurrence to her parents. It is next alleged that thereafter Kuldip and Sonu used to call and asked her to come to Jainagar for establishing physical relation and also asked to demand Rs.20 lakhs from Rakesh and threatened that if she will not accede to their demand the video would be made viral. Further, out of fear, she went to Nepal at her sister's place on 10.08.2025 and thereafter Kuldip and Sonu posted the video on facebook. Further, the screen shot and video are annexed with the FIR.
3/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant herself alleges that Kuldip and Sonu pressurized her to make a video with Rakesh with a view to extort an amount of Rs.20 lakhs from him and the informant being threatened became ready for making a video with Rakesh and thereafter she went to the coaching and concealed the mobile with video on, when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that petitioner has been made a victim of circumstance.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the allegation, it would manifest that informant alleges that she was a student of petitioner's coaching institute and the petitioner had evil eye on her and finding her alone used to act inappropriately. It is further submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason as to why the petitioner started behaving inappropriately with the informant when she entered the coaching on dictates of Kuldip and Sonu. This amply demonstrates that petitioner was always eyeing for the victim
4/4 and finding her alone started acting inappropriately but then saw the concealed mobile and thereafter fled away. It is next submitted that parents sent their children to coaching institute with a trust that the teachers and the owners of the coaching institute shall take care of their children but in the instant case the owner-cum-teacher of the institute himself was eyeing the victim. It is also submitted that investigation of the case is in its nascent stages.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 276 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T