Randhir Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83682 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2024 Thana- JURAWANPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Randhir Prasad Son of Sonelal Ray R/o Village Raghopur East, Police Station -Raghopur , District Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Bindeshwar Rai Son of Late Janak Rai Resident of Village - Raghopur East, Police Station- Jurawanpur, District - Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jurawanpur P.S. Case No. 133 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354B of the IPC, Sections 75/76 of the BNS and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is of wrongful touching, showing obscene videos as well as of making indecent statements and gestures towards the informants' school-going daughters.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the petitioner did not commit any kind of misdeed with the alleged victim girl. He is not working as a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83682 of 2024(7) dt.22-09-2025 2/2 teacher in the school mentioned in the FIR, rather, he is a teacher at middle school.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that all three minor girls were students of the school, where the petitioner was a teacher. In paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15 of the case diary, all the witnesses have fully supported the occurrence.
6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T