Lawyer&Advocate Randheer Bahadur

05/06/2026

🚨 THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PATNA ATTACK:

Why target Khan Sir for protecting his students? 🚨

A coordinated, violent smear campaign is being run against India’s favorite educator, Khan Sir. But before you believe the headlines, look at the actual facts of what happened at Khan Global Studies (KGS) in Patna:

1️⃣ The Active Terror on Campus:

A violent mob of 15–20 individuals stormed the institute, heavily pelting stones and smashing windows. A senior security guard, Chun Chun, was brutally beaten with bricks and rushed to PMCH with a split head.

2️⃣ The Trigger:

Rival coaching operators were furious after KGS celebrated 12,000 successful selections in the Bihar Police exams. The attack followed direct threats to "blow up the center" within two days.

3️⃣ Fired in the Air, NOT at People:

No one was shot. No one was injured by bullets. The private guards fired aerial warning shots purely to scare away a rioting mob and save innocent lives. This is the textbook definition of the Right of Private Defense!

The Twist: The Police and the "Nagaland License" LoopholeNow, the Patna Police have booked Khan Sir for "attempted murder." Why? Because the guards claimed they acted on his orders, and police are raising questions about the guards’ out-of-state Nagaland gun licenses.

Let’s be logical:👉 Does an employer verify the federal database of a security guard's license? No.

Private guards are hired through agencies or based on their active paperwork.

Khan Sir is an educator, not a verification officer for the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Legal Injustice in Khan Sir’s Patna Case 🚨

The Patna Police’s decision to book popular educator Khan Sir for "Attempted Murder" (Section 109 of the BNS) has shocked the student community.

But if you look closely at the legal definitions, the charges simply do not match the facts.

Here is why the police are applying the wrong law:

1️⃣ ZERO Intention to Kill:

For an "Attempted Murder" charge to stand, there must be a clear intent or premeditated malice to take a human life. Khan Sir’s guards did not aim at anyone. They did not pull the trigger targeting the rioters. No one was hit by a bullet, and no one was injured by gunfire.

2️⃣ The Real Reality:

A violent mob of 15–20 people was destroying the coaching campus and had brutally cracked open a senior guard's head with bricks. In complete panic and chaos, the security personnel fired into the air purely to disperse the crowd and stop the attack.

3️⃣ Negligence, Not Murder:

At absolute worst, firing weapons in a crowded student hub like Musallahpur can be viewed as a Rash and Negligent Act under Sections 290 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

It was a careless, reactive measure to scare away attackers—completely devoid of criminal intent to kill.

The judiciary must intervene to scale down these charges to match the true nature of the event: a reckless safety measure, not a murderous plot.


👉 How can an aerial warning shot to disperse a violent, weapon-wielding mob be twisted into an "attempt to murder"?

This wasn’t a public shootout; it was a private coaching dispute where an aggressive rival group brought violence to a student hub. Khan Sir’s team did what was necessary to protect the campus in my opinion.

Stand with education. Stand with the truth. 📚💪

12/02/2026

18/12/2025

Future Licence Cost seem very high, should be reasonable..

08/09/2025

05/09/2025

There is a recent judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court where it has reduced the maintenance amount to be paid by the husband/ appellant to his wife/ respondent and minor child.

The D.H.C court has reemphasised that facts and circumstances like the liability of the parties has to be kept in mind while making an order of maintenance by the Trial Court's. In this case the appellant had parents who depended on him, and certain EMI's.

However while reading the judgement I found that from Rs 25, 000 the H.C just has reduced it to Rs 17,500. It is worth mentioning that on the basis of records after deduction his salary was Rs 36,000. It might be a big relief for the appellant but as a reader I found the relief very small.

The High Court has just reduced Rs 7,500 are they enough to meet his parents expenses and EMI' s has to be seen. Having said that it is still a good judgement.



Well my post begins now..

I want to ask a question is wife a liability?

Ans-- It will be if you have bought her!

27/08/2025

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025—passed during the Monsoon Session of Parliament— received Presidential assent and officially become the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 as of August 22, 2025.

This landmark law ushers in sweeping changes:

What's Changing?

A blanket ban on all forms of real‑money online gaming, regardless of whether games rely on skill or chance; service providers, platforms, advertisers, and financial facilitators are subject to penalties—not the players.

--- Penalties include up to 3 years imprisonment and fines up to ₹1 crore for operators/facilitators; advertisers face up to 2 years in prison and fines of ₹50 lakh.

----Repeat violations can attract 3–5 years imprisonment and fines up to ₹2 crore, and key offences will be cognizable and non-bailable.

----The Act establishes a regulatory framework with national and state-level oversight bodies, licensing requirements, game classifications, and mandates for user safeguards like age verification, self‑exclusion, deposit limits, grievance redressal, and data protection.

In tandem, the government will promote e-sports and free-to-play social gaming, with plans for infrastructure, legal recognition, and industry incentives—India is positioning itself as a global gaming hub.

Aimed at tackling addiction, financial harm, fraud, money laundering, and even the disturbing links between online gaming and suicides or terror financing.

Sets the stage for a responsible gaming ecosystem—a shift from unregulated cash‑based models to structured, safe, and innovative digital entertainment

----Impact on the Industry

Major platforms like Dream11, MPL, WinZO, Zupee, and PokerBaazi have already halted real‑money operations and are pivoting toward alternative offerings

The legislation could lead to GST revenue losses (~₹15,000‑20,000 crore annually), but the government emphasizes public welfare over revenue.

27/08/2025

Recently The Punjab and Haryana High Court had passed a very good judgement related in an appeal against conviction of a man charged under section 376 ( r**e on the pretext of marriage).

Few points:

Women was married, 10 years older than man/ appeallant, she had two children, the place of offence was women's home where her family also lived, that too several times.

In my view considering the facts and circumstances of the case it's a good one. While still as per me I cannot say that judgement is 100 percent correct but with few points on table it looks a good judgement.

The Court held that:

“When a fully matured married woman, consents to sexual in*******se on a promise of marriage and continues indulging in such activity, it is merely an act of promiscuity, immorality and reckless disregard of the institution of marriage, not an act of inducement by misconception of fact. Section 90 of IPC cannot be applied in any such case to pardon the act of a woman and the criminal liability on another.”

The Court emphasized that the complainant:

“was not a naive, innocent bashful young lady… She was a grown‑up woman, mother of two children and was ten years older than appellant… intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the immoral acts for which she consented while her marriage was subsisting.”

What it means:

The High Court plainly stated that consensual physical intimacy under such circumstances cannot be construed as r**e—it may be "immorality," not inducement or deception.

It clarified that Section 90 IPC (which addresses consent obtained by misconception of fact) does not apply in such cases where the individual is mature and fully aware.

The wording underscores the Court’s delineation between criminality and morality, reaffirming that immoral conduct is not synonymous with criminal conduct when both parties are consenting and aware.

30/12/2024

20/11/2024