Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ranjit Kumar TiwaryversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The Court denied bail, finding the allegations serious enough to warrant continued custody.

Summary

The petitioner, Ranjit Kumar Tiwary, was arrested in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 66A and 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleges that he befriended the victim’s daughter on Facebook, obtained her mobile number, demanded intimate photographs via WhatsApp, used abusive language and threatened to circulate the images. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, has no prior criminal record and is willing to cooperate with the trial. The State and the informant’s mother opposed bail, asserting that the petitioner continues to threaten the prosecution from jail. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the Court refused bail, dismissed the application and directed the lower court to expedite the trial, allowing a fresh bail application if needed.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious allegations under the IT Act and POCSO Act
  • Whether the petitioner poses a threat to the investigation or trial proceedings

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Information Technology Act
  • POCSO Act
  • cybercrime
  • sexual exploitation
  • threat
  • false implication

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90020 of 2025
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- ISUAPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjit Kumar Tiwary S/O Rajesh Tiwari Resident of Bari Raibhan, P.S.-
                 Hathua, Dist.- Gopalganj.

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Patna
           2.    Gaytri Devi W/O Jitendra Tiwary R/O Vill.- Nethua, P.S.- Gaura, Dist.-
                 Saran

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s      :        Mr.N.K.Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate
                                                    Mr.Kamala Kant Tiwary, Advocate
                 For the State             :        Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
                 For the Informant         :        Mr.Udai Shankar Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   24-03-2026                       Heard Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for

                   the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Isuapur

                   P.S. Case No. 56/2025 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 66A, 67A of the I.T. Act and Section 12 of the POCSO

                   Act.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, Informant Gayatri Devi’s

                   daughter Khushboo Kumari created a Facebook profile, which

                   accused Ranjit Kumar Tiwary (petitioner) used to befriend her and

                   obtain mobile numbers. He allegedly demanded personal pictures

                   via WhatsApp, used abusive language, and threatened to circulate
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90020 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
                                                          2/2




                        her private pictures on social media.

                                     4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits

                        that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned

                        counsel further submits that he has no criminal antecedent and he

                        is in custody since 24.09.2025. The petitioner undertakes to co-

                        operate in the case/ trial.

                                     5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for

                        regular bail of the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant

                        has produced a complaint dated 21.01.2026 submitted by the

                        mother of the victim to the S.H.O. of Gaura P.S. in which it has

                        been said that the petitioner is threatening the prosecution from the

                        jail.

                                     6. Considering the facts of the case and the serious

                        allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined

                        to grant bail to the petitioner.

                                     7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed with

                        direction to the court below to expedite the trial and if it is being

                        delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for

                        bail.


                                                   (Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.