Dismissed¶21

Ranvir Kumar @ C .D . @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Mar 2024CR. MISC./195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC Cr. MISC. No.195 of 2024, decision 19-03-2024, Partha Sarthy J — regular bail DENIED/rejected. Cyber P.S. Patna FIR 35/2023; IPC sections 420, 468, 469, 506 and 376; I.T. Act sections 66, 66A, 66E, 67A; victim statement under Cr.P.C. section 164; custody since 7.7.2023; sextortion/blackmail via objectionable photographs and videocall screenshots, drink spiking, threats to viralise photos; Rs.50,000 extorted in cash, demands of Rs.36 lacs and Rs.25 lacs; petitioner Ranvir Kumar @ C.D. @ Rajesh Kumar; informant Snehlata.

What did the court decide?

None — regular bail denied; bail application rejected. ¶21

Ranvir Kumar @ C .D . @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.195 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2023 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Patna

¶3

====================================================== Ranvir Kumar @ C.D. @ Rajesh Kumar, Son of Shiv Pujan Yadav, Resident of Village- Lutphullah Chak P.S.- Jehanabad (karauna O.P.), DistrictJehanabad

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

Snehlata, Daughter of Shri Dayanand Prasad, Resident of Village- Oiara, P.S.-Dhanarua, District- Patna

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shrikesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 19-03-2024

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶13

grant of regular bail in connection with Cyber Patna P.S. Case no.35 of 2023 registered under sections 420, 468, 469 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66 and 67A of the I.T. Act.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that her distant relative took her in confidence and became friends with her. Thereafter, he started to chat on videocall and having made objectionable photos of her screenshot photographs, started to blackmail her and forcing her to enter

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2024 2/3

¶16

into illicit relations with him. She further states that on 3.7.2023, the accused sent objectionable photographs on the mobile phone of her father and started blackmailing. Immediate steps be taken.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no allegation of rape in the FIR nor even any allegation of the petitioner coming near the informant. Learned counsel refers to the report which has come in course of investigation. It is further submitted that her statement was recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. after 5 days and she was examined by the doctor after 21 days. In her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the alleged victim has tried to improve her case which has led to the police submitting charge-sheet under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is in custody since 7.7.2023 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

¶18

The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits it has transpired in course of investigation that objectionable photographs were sent on the mobile phone of the father of the informant. Further, in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. the informant has

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2024 3/3

¶20

supported the prosecution case including the allegations of spiking her drink and threatening to make her photographs viral. He also extorted Rs.50,000/- in cash from her and used to demand different amounts like Rs.36 lacs, Rs.25 lacs, etc. at different times from her father.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the contents of the statement of victim recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and chargesheet having been submitted in the case besides other sections also under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66E and 66A of the I.T. Act, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶22

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶23

avinash/-

¶24

U T

Ranvir Kumar @ C .D . @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranvir Kumar @ C .D . @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kameshwari Devi Vs Pramod Jha

Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Udgar Mehta @ Ramudgar Mehta Vs The State of Bihar