High Court Ka File

VISION FOR ALL

• 270 Posts
• 28 Comments

To

The Chief Justice

The High Court Of Patna

Patna

Date:-

Sub:- Writ Petition against the verdict of the Bihar State Human Rights Commission of dated:-31.10.2012-Regarding

Ref:- Complaint against Chiranjiwi Roy,the  principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur done to Bihar Human Rights Commission  [File No-3687/11 assigned by the BHRC]

Sir

With reference to my subject,i would like to state before you that the Bihar State Human Rights Commission  represented by Hon’ble Justice SN Jha,Chairperson,Bihar Human Rights Commission, has closed my case by error without giving any baseful decision on 31.10.2012.The commission was prejudiced too.

1.My matter is as under:-

 I was working against corruption.So when i entered in eleventh,principal started to trouble me by always saying he would expell me.For example:-i wanted to opt Humanities and principal said on 26 June 2011 that he would expell me if i would opt humanities[ due to a philosophical article titled VISION 2047 and working  against corruption].Principal had already kept me trapping since April 2011 in a very wrong objection[physical relationship with a junior boy named Sanjeev Suman who was my friend] but i was saying to justify and he never justified.Principal never justified in this view that i would be bound to take TC due to that objection.I was living in tension due to these aforesaid reasons and principal again said on 23 August 2011 that if i would be in tension,he would expell me.Anyhow,anyway,he wanted to not see in the school.

 Such reasons bounded  me to complain against principal to NVS,Headquarter on 25  Aug 2011 by running away (absconding)from the school on 24 Aug 2011 without taking permission.In revenge to this,principal trapped me on 14 Sept 2011  with that boy named Sanjeev Suman as i complained against him.Principal mistreated too on the date of trapping and expelling on 14 Sept 2011 before my father like he slapped me,withdrew from the main gate of school and threatened to not come before his eyes. 

Now he is saying,he didn’t  expell me in one hand as he has forced my father to wtite application for the issuance of  TC on 28 Sept 2011. .So he has tried to destroy the evidences by forcing my father to write application. On the other hand,he has kept a lot of fake documents[complaints ] to show that i was doing wrong .So he has tried to illegally collect the evidence by manufacturing fake documents against me. He has done both above also to protect himself as he did wrongSuch documents are artificially prepared by principal after my approaching to the commission.I was nothing wrong.Even that boy was helping me in my project in which i am working for a new model of democracy,new model of economy,understanding hidden human feelings in interaction with nature,coming human psychology and everything in new manner .By trapping me with this boy,principal and all such others have tried to stop such new ideology.

I complained to National Human Rights Commission and Bihar Human Rights Commission by post on 19.12.2011.National Human Rights Commission disposed of the case by fordading the matter to ministry of Human Resource and Development,Govt of India.The ministry forwaded the case to Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti(NVS),Headquarter and the headquarter did nothing.In this way,nothing was done in my case.Bihar Human Rights Commission has closed my case on 31.10.2012(letter received by post on 11.11.2012 and letter issued by BHRC on 2.11.2012)

A copy of my complaint done to the Bihar Human Rights Commission on 19 Dec 2011  is appended under reference.

                                                                                                                            -Annexure 1

In view of my  above  noted  complaint,my many human rights and fundamental rights have been violated,which are as under:-

1.My alleged expulsion  is humiliation of right to education  under right to life -article 21 of Indian Constitution.

2.Principal trapped me with Sanjeev forcely  and this is the humiliation of right to live with human dignity and freedom from torturing under right to life -article 21 of Indian Constitution.

3.Principal trapped me with Sanjeev  and this is the humiliation of right to privacy also- under right to life.There is no right for other person to interfer in friendship between 2 personnel without any evidence.So this is humiliation of right to privacy.

4.Principal refused to allot humanities due to a philosophical article of VISION 2047 by imposing condition of expulsion. This is  humiliation of right to freedom of expression under article 19(1)(a).But this is not only the humiliation of freedom of expression .This is also the humiliation of freedom of selecting occupation because opting Humanities is related to select career in this field.But under article 19(1)(g) ,right to freedom of selecting occupation only deals with humiliation of selecting occupation in present not in future.But this may be considered under this article because this would be resulted in the humiliation of freedom of selecting occupation in future ultimately.Even this is the humiliation of right to equality of opportunity under article 16(1) but right to equality of opportunity only deals with in the matter of employment or appointment.There is no seizure of my employment or appointment forcely but refusing to allot humanities by principal is the seizure of equal opportunity to grow up to get career in future.So this may be considered a humiliation of right to equality of opportunity.

5. Principal imposed the condition of expulsion if i would be in tension. This is humiliation of  freedom from torturing and right to live with human dignity under article 21 or right to life.Even this  is  not only humiliation of right to life  and  something more?By saying such,principal behaved with me as slave and principal humiliated my equal opportunity to grow up because no other was imposed such condition.Only i was imposed.But article for slavery and equal opportunity don’t explain such.So this may be considered under article related to slavery and equality of opportunity.

6.Principal said without any evidence and due to prejudice that he would expell me if i would talk with sanjeev.This is humiliation of  article 21 or right to life which explains about freedom from torturing and right to live with human dignity.Even this is not  only torturing  and something more?Principal(even his mother and any) has no right to interfer in friendship between 2  personnel without evidence.So this is humiliation of right to privacy.

7.The boy was so helpful for my project.In spite of this,principal trapped  me without evidence.He was helpful for my expression.But right to freedom of expression only says about the humiliation of expression expressed by a person.He was not an article,which can be expressed.But helpful for my project.So this may be categorized under humiliation of right to freedom of expression.

8. Principal trapped me after complaining against him.So i protested against principal.But right to protest under article 19(1)(b) only deals with protesting peacefully in gathering.Not explains personal protest.As i protested,this may be considered as the humiliation of right to protest.I complained due to personal problems.So this should be considered under right against exploitation.But right against exploitation only deals with child labour,human trafficing etc and not such matter like suppression of someone by a person due to  personal interest or prejudices.As i complained due to exploitation,this may be considered as violation of right against exploitation.

9.I was being trapped on the ground of caste also as Sanjeev has no family and social relationship with me and this created prejudices for my accused that 2 boys of some age differences having no family and social relationship can be wrong sexually.So  this was descrimination on ground of caste also and this is humiliation of article 15(1)-right to equality.

10.Principal has manufcatured fake documents against me addressed to himself by the mother of Sanjeev of dated:-22.8.2011,Sanjeev and PK Acharya of dated:-22.9.2011,GS Chaudhary of dated:-24.8.2011.Principal has manufactured fake documents addressed to District Magistrate,Samastipur and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Samastipur.Principal has done such to protect himself-this is another matter.Principal has done such to present me wrong externally and artificially.So this is humilaition of my right to live with human dignity and freedom from torturing under right to life:-article 21.

 The order of the commission of dated 31.10.2012 is as under:-

The commission has stated that i accused principal that he allegedly expelled me.But the princpal has shown application that my father has given the application of TC on 28.9.2011.In his order this is written,I have submitted that my father was forced to write application.Again,this is written in the order that i have objected principal that he has manufactured fake documents after my approaching to the commission and i have evidence to prove my innocence.I have filed papers in this regard as the commission has written.

Again in the order,this is written that  on perusal of documets it appears to the commission that matter involves disputed questions.

Without going through evidences and clarification,again this is stated that if this is assumed that  i was expelled then this  would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.Without proving whether my father was forced to write application or not,whether fake documents are manufactured or not,what disputed questions my matter involve,how this can be said that if this is assumed i was expelled then this action  would appear to be in the nature of  disciplinary measure.In this view of matter,the commission has closed my case by saying that the commission is not inclined to make any kind of intervention in the matter.

But this must  be noted against this policy of the commission that there is no discussion of any evidence and clarification like whether principal forced to write or not,whether principal has manufactured documents against me or not,what disputed questions involve my matter.

If i was expelled then this was disciplinary matter then 1. Why principal forced my father to write application to protect himself.In this sense that if i was expelled,there should be no application for the issuance of TC.No application should be given by my father for the issuance of TC.But application is given.In this sense,if i was expelled.Then this can be said that in one hand,principal expelled me.On the other hand,principal forced my father to write application.Unless,no application can be given because i was expelled.Now the question is ,why principal forced my father to write application and why princiapal is himself saying by showing the said application that he didn’t explain me.This proves,principal did wrong to expell me.So he forced to write application to  protect himself and now saying by showing application that he didn’t expell me.Principal forced,this means i was right.This means,nothing was proved against me .This means,the child and no one said anything against me.This means,no such documents against me were available till that time.This means,documents against me have been manufactured by the principal after my approaching to the commission.

2.Why princpal manufactured fake documents against me in back date to protect himself and show me wrong externally.

This proves,the commission has given decision by error as the commission didn’t consider the base  of decision but gave decision.If  this would be proved that the principal has forced my father to write application of TC and he has manufactured fake documents against me,then this would be cleared that if i was expelled then principal did wrong as he forced my father to write application of TC and manufactured fake documents to protect himself,show me wrong etc .  The commission was  prejudiced too.

3.Overall,this is the humiliation of law to say that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would  appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.In our law,there is no place of assuming,supposing.Law is not mathematics where everything is proved by assuming,suppossing,seeming,appearing.In law,everything has to be proved.So without  proving that i was expelled or not and if i was expelled then by proving this that this was disciplinary action-only then the case can be closed.By saying,this would  appear to be in the nature of  disciplinary measure case can’t be closed.So the commission has closed my case without following law and order.In law and order,everything is proved first then appeared.

Besides above 3 bases which i have described where commission didn’t go through evidence and clarification 1. whether principal forced my father to write application or not and 2.Whether principal manufactured fake documents against me or not and 3. the decision is humiliation of law and order,there are  20  bases also to prove that the commission has given decision by mistaking and the commission was prejudiced too.

A copy of order of the Bihar Human Rights Commission of dated:-31.10.2012 is appended under reference.

                                                                                              -Annexure 2

All other  20 bases against the decision of the commission  are appended under reference in Annuxure 3.

                                                                                                      – Annexure 3

2.The report submitted by the principal to the Bihar Human Rights Commission of dated:-1.3.2012  itself discloses the conspiracy of the principal as the report directly clears many faults related to action taken,date,case No,gaping ,baseless statements etc.The report of the principal is appended under reference.

                                                                                                      -Annexure 4

3.The complaint of the planted child victim named Sanjeev Suman of dated:-22.9.2011  is appended under reference where nothing like unnatural offence is written.

                                                                                                   -Annexure 5

4.This complaint is written by the brother of Sanjeev Suman named Sanjeet Kashyap and no sign of Sanjeev Suman is present.Principal has signed on 20.9.2011-2 days before- but the complaint is done as the enclosure of PK Acharya on 22.9.2011.Firstly,this should be observed that all matters are of till March 2011 but the complaint is of 22 Sept 2011-after 6 months and after complaining against principal in the NVS,Headquarter on 25 August 2011.Secondly, by the date,sign and writing related faults,this is obvioused that the complaint is manufactured later in back date when i complained against principal to the Bihar Human Rights commission.  This  complaint is forcely manufactured by principal. Thirdly,this point may be noted as the commission said that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011[which i have written in my complaint of dated:-19.12.2011 done to the BHRC] but this complaint of that child  is of dated:-22.9.2011-8 days later of expulsion.By the phone recording of principal,evidence through media,statements of students,emails sent to the principal,call details record  etc,this is evident that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011.By his complaint,this is evident that i was trapped first by some boys forcely and he didn’t complain against me and he was living with me.There are many such drawbacks which i have explained in Annexure-31

                                                                                                        – Annexure  -30

5.There is no sign of the principal in complaint done to the principal by Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev Suman of dated:-22.8.2011.

                                                                                                   Annexure-6

6.The complaint done by Smt. Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev Suman to the District Magistrate,Samastipur is of dated:-23.9.2011 but the complainant has signed on 23.8.2011-one month before.The complaint is sealed and application No. is given to this complaint on 26.9.2011-after 3 days- but the complaint is sealed and application No. is given on the  day of complaining.So this must  had to be sealed and application No had to be given on 23.9.2011.

Annexure-7

The letter of the District Magistrate of dated 29.9.2011 sent to the principal in respect of complaint of the mother of Sanjeev  vide letter No-4285 is appended also which is fake.

                                                                                               .             Annexure-8

In regard to the District Magistrate,Samastipur,this point may be noted  also that this is said by principal  and he has sent me a copy of  report too that principal has submitted  a report  to the DM office on 19.10.2011 on my withdrawal by my father’s request  on poor health ground in respect of the order issued by the DM office of dated:-29.9.2011 vide letter No.4285.But in this order of dated 29.9.2011 principal has signed on 18.10.2011-one day before after writing that a report was submitted on my withdrawal on health ground.Moreover,in the report of dated:-19.10.2011,he has written the name of Sanjeet Kashyap in place of Sanjeev Suman.

This proves,everything is fake.

A copy of report of dated:-19.10.2011 is appended under reference.

Annexure-8/1

7.The complaint done by Smt. Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev Suman to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Samastipur, is of 23.9.2011. In the complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate,no date,case no and seal is present.The complaint is signed by the applicant on 23.9.2011 but signed by an official on dated:-21.9.2011-two days before.

                                                                                                       -Annexure 9

8.This proves that the all  complaints of the mother of Sanjeev Suman  are fake,prepared artificially in back date.This point may be noted also that the complaints to DM and SDM  are  of Sept 2011-after complaining against principal in August 2011 and after of 6 months as all matters are of till March 2011.One Complaint is of 22.8.2011.This is also of after 5 months.Thirdly,this point may be noted as the commission said that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011[which i have written in my complaint of dated:-19.12.2011 done to the BHRC] but both complaints of that mother  are of dated:-23.9..2011-9 days later of expulsion.

There are many such  drawbacks in her complaints and her statements and  her one complaint doesn’t match to the statements of her another complaint for the same incident.It’s contradictory.The statement in her one complaint is changed in another.She has complained on the basis of the statement of her son but such statements are not available in the complaint of her son.She is utilized and  forced by the principal.

There are many such drawbacks which i have explained in Annexure-30

                                                                                                        – Annexure  -30

9.The complaint of Ghan Shyam[GS] Chaudhary,PGT Maths/House master of Arawali A  is of dated:-24.8.2011.On the date of my absconding.The complaint was signed by GS Chaudhary on 23.8.2011 and this is made 24.8.2011 by any other.Why the complaint is not done before absconding? This complaint is signed by the principal on 24.8.2011 but he was not present in school on 24.8.2011.This proves that the complaint is fake,prepared artificially in back date.Either he is forcely utilized by the principal or helped to impress the principal.

                                                                                  – Annexure-10

There are many such drawbacks and contradictory statements in this complaint  which don’t match to the statements of others for the particular incident  which i have explained in Annexure-31

                                                                                                       -Annexure-30

10.The complaint of PK Acharya,TGT English/Housemaster of Udaygiri B is of 22.9.2011 but no sign of principal is present in the complaint.This proves that the complaint is fake,prepared artificially in back date.This point may be noted also that the complaint is of Sept 2011-after complaining against principal in August 2011 and after of 6 months as all matters are of till March 2011.Thirdly,this point may be noted as the commission said that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011[which i have written in my complaint of dated:-19.12.2011 done to the BHRC] but this complaint of PK Acharya  is of dated:-22.9.2011-after 8 days of expulsion.Either he is forcely utilized by the principal or helped to impress the principal.

                                                                   -Annexure -11

There are many such drawbacks and contradictory statements in this complaint  which don’t match to the statements of others for the particular incident  which i have explained in Annexure-30

                                                                                                       Annexure-30

Overall,the complaint is not done by the planted victim namely Sanjeev Suman as  this is  written by the brother of Sanjeev Suman namely Sanjeet Kashyap.So the complaint is itself false.So this can be said that baselessly and forcely all others like the mother of Sanjeev,PK Acharya,Principal,AK Tiwari have  written  or prepared documents against me by falsely making Sanjeev as the base of complaints against me.The complaint is written in the  name of Sanjeev on 22.9.2011 but principal has reported the Deputy Commissioner,NVS  ,Patna on 25.8.2011 by also referring to the emotional problems of Sanjeev and the mother of Sanjeev complained to principal on 22.8.2011 and 6.7.2011-one month before on the basis of the statement of her son.How such thing was done before on the basis of the statement of Sanjeev where he had no given any such statement before 22.9.2011.

11.In the report of principal to the BHRC,this is said that when Sri Balendu Prasad Singh [BP Singh],TGT Maths/House master of Arawali B  prohibited me to not sleep with that child then I became argumentative and illtreated with BP Singh.In the reporting of principal to the Deputy Commissioner,NVS Patna, during absconding,this is said that BP Singh was facing problems as I slept many times.This means,he was only facing problems and he didn’t prohibited me and I didn’t illtreeat with him.In the complaint of that child,namely,Sanjeev Suman, this is said that BP Singh prohibited him to not go outside the room after dinner and I started to argue with BP Singh. In the enquiry report of AK Tiwari,this is said that BP Singh prohibited me to not come to the hostel of that child by observing living ,eating and sleeping with that child,not prohibited about sleeping as principal said.So there are many contradictory statements and this proves that I was objected forcely.

Such all contradictory statements related to the matter of BP Singh prove that he is somehow involved to object me forcely.

I was  totally unaware and unknown about such participants of Smt.Pintu Kumari,GS Chaudhary,PK Acharya  and BP Singh in the conspiracy of principal.I came to know by the report of principal,receiving all complaints against me by RTI from the principal,receiving report submitted by the AK Tiwari.

In this view of matter,i am making these all [Smt.Pintu Kumari,GS Chaudhary,PK Acharya  and BP Singh ] as a party of my petition alongwith principal and the BHRC.As Bihar Human Rights Commission didn’t consider anything against them  and verdict is given on the basis of these complaints which are fabricated and manufactured.So they all have helped to effect judicial proceedings and done crime against me.

Accordingly,i am making them as a party.This seems right that principal has utilized them to protect himself ,especially the mother of Sanjeev is too forced-it seems.Due to being a mother,Smt Pintu Kumari is too forced and utilized.Similarly,GS Chaudhary,house master of Arawali A (my house master),BP Singh,house master of Arawali B(house master of Sanjeev where he was staying before house changing) and PK Acharya,house master of Udaygiri B(house master of Sanjeev after his house changing) have been utilized by principal  due to being a house  master.

12.The reply of Awamanana Notice of dated:-17.7.2011 ,sent to the District Magistrate,Samastipur on 7.6.2011, clearly proves that the complaint against me is fake as the reply doesn’t come according to the noted points of my notice.Response is not sent according to my noted points that DM referred that complaint against me after 6 months having no action taken which is humiliation of my right to life because if he would  refer immediately or action would be taken if he referred after 6 months,there would be solution in my favour due to medical test and opportunity to keep my favour.This proves,if complaint is done after 6 months having no action taken,this was wrong and conspiracy.This is replied in response of my contempt notice that report is taken from the principal in response of my contempt notice.This means,no any document was available before against me  in DM office so when i sent DM this notice,he took report from principal.In other words,principal has manufactured fake documents addressed to DM.Moreover,this is said that action is taken against me.This proves that principal expelled me.

The RTI response of DM office of dated:-                  in response of my RTI application of dated:- 

                                       clearly proves the fixing between principal and some officers of collectorate,Samastipur like The Officer on Special Duty of Zila Gopniya Prasakha and The officer Incharge of District Public Grievance Cell as the The Officer on Special Duty of Zila Gopniya Prasakha has not supplied documents by referring that the principal has already supplied and responsing my some questions that information sought is not information as per 2(F) of RTI Act,2005 as the principal replied same. The officer Incharge of District Public Grievance Cell has issued fake letter of dated:-29.9.2011  to the principal in respect of the complaint of the mother of Sanjeev.I am able to understand the conspiracy of these people.Now in my RTI Application of dated:-1.10.2012  i have demanded from DM office  the complaint of that mother,report submitted by principal in regard to complaint of that mother and i was thinking that this will be said again that information has already been provided by the principal but no reply came so again i have filed first appeal .I have demanded the document which prove action taken and  i was thinking that this will be said-Not Available but no reply came.I have asked what action is taken in regard to this complaint and i was thinking that this will be said that no action was requested as principal said in his RTI response of dated:-8.10.2012 but no reply came.This proves,all documents  are fake,have been manufactured by principal under the co-operation of some officers of DM office or principal himself manufactured but DM office is hiding the conspiracy of principal so no reply came by the DM office[by The Officer Incharge of District Public Grievance Cell who signed on order of dated:-29.9.2011]  to not go more alongwith the conspiracy of principal by supplying fake documents or replying  what i have expected above in response of my questions of this RTI application.  I am in the thinking that after getting the reply of DM office in response of my this second RTI application sent to the officer incharge of  District Public Grievance Cell  ,i will appeal to State Information Commission alongwith first RTI application which was sent to the officer  on special duty by combining together.So i have not appleaed yet against this first RTI application to the SIC.

They have helped to protect principal by helping in manufacturing documents against me and hiding this conspiracy.

Here,this point may be noted  how principal said that no action was requested when i asked him action taken in regard to complaint filed against me to the DM.This means,principal is going to say that no action was taken against me because he didn’t request any action.Is he authorized to say such?Principal was only said to submit report.Action was to be taken by the District Magistrate whether the pricipal  requests action or not. But he is saying that no action was taken bacause he didn’t request action.This proves,the all documents have been manufactured against me after my approaching to the Human Rights Commission and everything was fixed so if principal says to take action,action is taken and if principal says to not take action,no action is taken.

If my Awamanana Notice was studied by the District Magistrate and response is sent to me in response of my Awamanana Notice by the direction of the District Magistrate,then he is also involved to protect principal because in my notice,this is said that complaint is done against me before him after   months having no action taken.So if complaint was not lodged then he could say that no complaint is lodged and complaint said by principal is false.But this is replied in other manner as i have described above to hide this conspiracy.

My RTI applications sent to principal and DM office and response of these applications are appended.My Awamanana Notice sent to DM and its response are appended.

                         -Annexure 12

I have proved the fixing between principal and  some officers of collectorate,Samastipur in annexure-30

                                                       –  Annexure-30

In this view of matter,i am making Samastipur District Administration as the party as i came to know about this fixing during the proceedings going on in the BHRC and the BHRC didn’t consider this.

13.In my father’s written application sent to the BHRC,he has proved that he was forced to write application,there was no such gravity of the situation as principal explained like complaint to DM (District Magistrate ) and SDM(Sub-Divisional Magistrate).Principal may add lines in that application of TC dated:-.28.9.2011 artificially.

The application of my father is appended.

-Annexure 13

My Medical report  can be only base to say that i was issued TC on poor health ground .But my medical report is in my favour.I consulted once to cardiologist on 18 July 2011 and never consulted again.I had BP -90/60  mm Hg and pulse rate 100 b/ min which is considered common.Principal may prepare fake medical report.This proves,my father was forced to write application.

My medical report is appended.

-Annexure 14

I have proved how principal trapped me and how principal forced to write application in Annexure- 30

14.AK Tiwari,Assisstant Commissioner,NVS Patna  was appointed as investigation officer after the order of National Human Rights Commission  and the report submitted by AK Tiwari presents some different facts of every incident.His report increased contradictory statements for a particular incident.I have proved about contradictions in annexure -30

The report submitted by AK Tiwari is appended.

-Annexure-15

In this report,this is written that i went to NVS,Headquarter on 25 Aug  2011.This means,i went to NVS Headquarter and complained against principal.No one complaint says that i  went to NVS Headquarter; to  protect principal.All complaints only say about my absconding to centralize me.But now this is evident that  i ran away to NVS Headquarter,New Delhi to complain against the principal.

15.After the order of central information commission,NVS Headquarter has accepted that i complained written  against principal on 25 Aug 2011.My RTI application,the response of NVS Headquarter and order of CIC  are appended.

-Annexure –  16

In this letter,NVS,Headquarter has accepted that the complaint which is done by me to the NVS,Headquarter might have been forwaded to JNV Samastipur in order to take report to take action against erring official.But this is not written what report is taken and what action is taken which are my questions too.This proves,my complaint was only forwaded to the principal to show him that i have complained against him.Either NVS Headquarter or NVS Patna sent this complaint to the principal and accordingly principal trapped me as his higher authority sent the complaint only to show principal not to take report and action.I have appealed to Central Information Commission against this reply of NVS,Headquarter but no reply came.

Now this is evident that principal expelled me after complaining against principal or mostly fake documents are manufactured in the date of after complaining against principal.

In this regard,this point may be noted that NVS,Patna has refused to issue information twice by referring to decision of Bombay High Court(Celsa Pinto V/S Goa State Information Commission) in response of my question related to my email complaint sent to nvspatna @rediffmail.com on 17 Aug 2011(which is also filed to headquarter and due to this principal trapped me)what action is taken,what enquiry is initiated,is any reformation or deformation happned,has principal done wrong against someone after this complaining or not.My these 4 questions  were in the sense of what,not in why.Only one question if action is not taken still then why was in the sense of why.But this was also asked on the basis of my complaint done against a person and  the information was sought on that basis.So not only the information of these 4 questions,but the information of all questions must be provided.I appealed Central Information Commission twice and no reply came yet.

Such temperament of NVS,Patna proves that the principal is wrong,irregularities are going on and he did wrong with me.

A copy of my RTI application and Response of NVS,Patna are appended under reference.

Annexure-16

In this regard,this may be noted also that NVS,Headquarter has said in response of my 13 questions that as the  enquiry report is very clear,no action is proposed by the competent authority.After the order of National Human Rights Commission(NHRC) to the Secretary,Ministry of Human Resources and Development,Govt Of India,HRD  forwaded the matter to NVS,Headquarter and NVS,Headquarter replied without keeping my side/favour that i was not expelled,i was issued TC on my father request on poor health ground.Again HRD forwaded a new order of the NHRC and my report sent to HRD to NVS.In spite of this,without considering my favour,this is said that as the enquiry report is very clear so no further action is proposed.This proves,forcely they want to protect principal anyhow,anyway.

A copy of my RTI application and response of NVS,Headquarter are appended under reference.A copy of the letter of NVS,Headquarter of dated:-5.3.2012 is also appended which says that i was not expelled.

Annexure-16

In this regard,this may be noted also that Union HRD minisrty has also refused to provide information.Firstly,this is said that i have sent application to the Department of school education and literacy instead of higher education and one copy is forwaded to NVS,Headquarter.Again when i sent RTI application to department of Higher education,department of school education and literacy itself replied and only forwaed a copy to NVS,Headquarter.After the first reply of Union HRD ministry,i have appealed to the CIC but no reply came yet.

These all things prove that principal did wrong with me so no one is providing information,ignoring my application anyhow by saying something.

A copy of my RTI application and response of Union HRD ministry are appended under reference.

Annexure-16

Even Deputy Comissioner(DC),NVS,Patna is reported twice by principal regarding issuance of TC on my father’s application.One application was given by my father on 26.8.2011 to issue TC from the NVS,headquarter and which was said to cancel on 14.9.2011 by giving an another application but he didn’t cancel the application of dated:-26.8.2011 and expelled and principal again forced to write application on 28.9.2011 and reported to DC .

On  3 Sept 2011,my father talked to SK Gurg,Assisstant Commissioner(AC),NVS,Headquarter and GS Chandra,AC,NVS,Patna to inform that principal is saying that he will not keep me as i have said him corrupt,i have complained against him.But both of the officers refused to say principal why he was saying such   and protected principal.From 9471090180 to 9431024821(GS Chandra) and 09868855597(SK Gurg)

16. Principal accepted before Hindustan Daily News,Regional Office,Muzaffarpur that he trapped me and expelled on the basis of the written complaint done to the principal by the mother of Sanjeev.Sanjay Katiyar,Editor,Hindustan,Muzaffarpur and his team may be asked in this matter.I have proved this accepting of princpal and what this accepting of principal proves in annexure-30

Emails conversations are appended under reference.

-Annexure-17

17.Princiapal has accepted in his RTI response of dated:-8.10.2012 in regard of my RTI application of dated:-4.10.2012 that he  has received my article of VISION 2047 as this was sent to jnvbs@rediffmail.com from 648rahul@gmail.com.As principal has said that he has not in the received of such article.This means,if he would be in receipt of such article then he would refuse to allot Humanities.Now this has been proved that he has received.That’s why he has refused to allot humanities due to this article.Principal has said that i submitted application for admission in science.I have not submitted.So this fake  application may be manufactured fake by principal.

A copy of my RTI application and response of principal is appended under reference.

Annexue-18

A copy of this article sent to the principal is appended under reference.

Annexure-19

I have proved in detail in Annexure-30

18.The mother of Sanjeev has not given the reply of my Awamanana Notice[contempt notice] sent twice by pointing out that even a being mother  she lodged case against me after 6 months having no action taken which is the humiliation of my right to life because if case would be lodged immediately or action would be taken if case lodged after 6 months then there would be solution in my favour due to medical test and opportunity to keep my favour.

She didn’t reply  but DM office has replied.This proves,

1.If complaint was lodged after 6 months,this was wrong.

2,If complaint was not lodged immediately,this was wrong.

3.If no action was taken,this was conspiracy.

4.If no medical test happened and i was not given the opportunity to keep my favour,this was wrong.

A copy of Awamanana Notice is appended under reference.

-Annexure-20

This may be noted under reference that principal was directed to submit report in regard to my awamanana notice sent to DM by pointing out same sent to Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev,but principal didn’t response according to noted points and sent same report sent to the BHRC[as i received through RTI] So this proves 4 above noted points which is proved in the case of Sanjeev’s mother.

The report to DM office by principal  in response of Awamanana Notice is appended under reference.

-Annexure-21

19.Principal has refused to provide information under RTI Act,2005 in response of my question what medical report detected,what are the reasons to lodge case after 6 months,not immediately by saying that information sought is not information as per 2(F) of RTI Act,2005.I asked principal that complaints against me are done after complaining against him,what are the reasons and he replied same.Now he has refused to do further correspondence through RTI.Such all responses of principal prove that wrong was done with me.So he has no answer.I have appealed to Central Information Commission against these RTI response of principal but no reply came yet.

My all RTI applications and responses of principal on these are appended under reference.

-Annexure-22

I have discussed about this in detail in Annexure 30.

20.Many other evidences left like SMS Details record,Call detail record,fax detail record,email detail record which may be traced and may prove helpful to prove my innocence,which is explained in Annexure 30

All other remaining things are appended in Annexure 30

Annexure 30 is my response in view of all matters,which are not explianed in my this main report.

-Annexure 30

21.Evidences through phone recordings of principal

 By the recording dated:-4.9.2011,this is evident that application for TC  has been given twice and principal is going to expell me as I am saying that you can’t give me TC if I complained against you,i have said you corrupt,application is given willingly and will be cancelled willingly and principal is saying that whatever I want to say come to office and say .So principal is saying to ask him in the office why he is giving me TC if I complained against him,why he is not cancelling that application for TC of dated:-26.8.2011 if this is given willingly. By the recordings of dated:-5 May 2012,6 May 2012,9 May 2012 and 6 Aug 2012,this is evident that principal has prepared fake complained later after my approaching to the commission  as he cut the phone first on 5 May 2012 by abusing and saying in perplexed condition how I dare to ask on phone,again  in all other  recordings by saying always that come to office to know this.This means,I am not known about this so principal is going to inform me by saying to come to office to know about this.That’s why complaints are done later in back date.I had explained in details about these recordings in my responses submitted to the BHRC which the BHRC didn’t consider.

A copy  of CD of recordings under reference are  appended.

-Annexure 23

22.Evidences through phone recordings of students and statements of students through social media(Facebook)

 More than 80 students have sent messages/commented/liked in my favour and against principal includng my roommates,his [Sanjeev ] roommates,my housemates,his housemates ,students of different classes and hostels..This proves,principal trapped me forcely and principal has prepared fake documents to protect himself,create plus point against me and showing situation of taking TC. This proves,that child didn’t complain against me and no one is eye-witness.If i would be wrong,no one would support me.There are recordings of 10 students also which prove all above.

 By these recordings and statements through facebook,many wrong action of principal are obvioused also .eg-he gave TC some boys on the basis of age but some classmates of these boys were more over aged.Surely,this was done as the parents of these boys would not give desired money.DM looked into this issue and he ordered principal to keep them again.He withdrew a boy named Jabbir Hussain 3 times for some days because he was muslim[now he is refusing due to some fear as his younger brother is still staying in that school but he has enlisted himself in may be option of coming to give witness in high court.This means,he may come to give witness.This proves,he was rusticated 3 times due to being a muslim in real].Principal expelled a girl named Jyoti Kumari due to being a tribe and forced to sign on wrong objections.He expelled a boy named Vikash Kumar  because he didn’t give an exam of class 8.He was threatening a boy personally named Vikash Thakur to rusticate after strike of 2 Jan 2008 because he was small.He has started his occupation by organizing coaching classes of a coaching centre but the students wanted the coaching class of one another coaching centre which was not connected to principal but studying comparatively well.He has great hand in the leaking of JNVST question papers etc,etc.

Students  namely Madhav Kumar Singh , Vikash Thakur,Santosh Kumar, Jyoti Kumari(her father is refusing but she is ready) and the mother of Jyoti Kumari have been ready to give witness face to face.Vikash Thakur,Santosh Kumar, Jyoti Kumari and the mother of Jyoti Kumari are ready to come to High Court and Madhav Kumar Singh is ready for video conferencing.You are requested to allow me to initiate video call with Madhav through internet.

Recordings of students are appended under reference.

-Annexure 23

Statements of students are appended under reference.

-Annexure 24

23.I have crossed other objections imposed on me as under:-

Regarding Mobile Keeping:-

Mobile was directly proportional to my work load and some problems.I had to prepare power point presentation which needed internet and there was lack of internet facility that time,I was working socially/ against corruption/educationally and this needed to contact with a person.Mobile minimized the time of contacting.I had some psychological needs also,which I have explained in my responses to the BHRC  and its enclosures in details.As those boys were torturing and torturing created problems for myself and that child and in this way that child started to cut his contact to the human interaction and dipped himself in imaginative interaction of mobile,Harry Potter etc and this led him to not live without mobile game,use of internet,reading and watching Harry Potter and mobile was only the solution to keep him psychologically fit and this would ultimately lead to cut his contact from the imaginative interaction and join his contact with humanitarian/natural interaction.

Regarding SMS/Emails sending to Sanjeev:-

In the report of principal to the BHRC,this is said that I sent that child objectionable SMS and emails.In the complaint of that mother done to principal,this is said that I sent SMS to her number and emails to the ID of that child.In this complaint,this is indicated that I have expressed negative mentally towards  her child that i will die without her son.This is not said that I sent to that child.In the complaint to SDM and DM,this is said that I sent her SMS/emails  to threaten her.In the enquiry report of AK Tiwari,this is said that I sent emails to the ID of that child.Nothing is said,for whom this was sent.In fact,I was being trapped forcely but I have right to keep my favour so I sent her sms/emails to keep my favour.If she would listen me then I would not send her sms and emails.If I would be trapped due to evidences then I would not send sms/emails because there would be no right then.That child was in school and he had no mobile to open sms/eemails so this was sent to her mother to keep my favour and she knows to check sms and emails.

A copy of all emails are appended under reference

Annexure-25

Objection Related to BP Singh:-

In fact,BP Singh was saying why Sanjeev was living with me and had said thrice.So I talked with him to know his problems and he started to say who are you ,is your brother,family member,relative etc so I replied him that this is old mentality.He was prohibiting to eat together in mess and I replied him that there is no rule to prohibit this.BP Singh stated false before principal when principal was trapping me that he prohibited the students of his house to not go outside after dinner and in response to this i mistreated with him..So approx same statement is given by that child under pressure that BP Singh prohibited him to not go outside the room after dinner  and in response to this,i discussed with BP Singh but principal made this more false.In this view of matter,i am  making BP Singh party.I opposed the thinking of BP Singh.This was against his so called ego and prestige and this resulted in stating false against me.

24.I have to face many psychological problems due to objection forcely imposed on me.In my report,this is clearly written that i was seeing  terrible dream and my mind was in terrible figure.I was seeing terrible figure of such person who trapped and tortured and i was too oppressed so i was seeing terrible dream.This proves,how much i was tortured and forcely trapped.Still i am facing many psychological problems like phobia from all human beings,thinking even in sleeping etc.

A copy of psychological report is appended under  reference.

25.On 24.2.2011 and 7.3.2011,i recorded torturing created by some students.How they  are torturing,can be observed.In the  recording of dated:-24.2.2011,there is voice of Sanjeev also who is opposing the torturing and speaking in my favour.But these recordings are no more available.These 2 were deleted.But these can be traced from Nokia Express Music 5130-a mobile in which recordings were done.The mobile may be sealed for this and i may make available this mobile for forensic test.This proves,some students were wrong with Sanjeev and i was not wrong.

In this regard,this may be noted also that the mother of Sanjeev herself talked through telephone from my mother  on 24.8.2011 when i ran away and next day on 25.8.2011 and talked in sympathetic manner and accepted her errors.Why she talked on both days if she was not changed now?Call details must be traced.[from 9334697916 (perhaps) to 9234014790(perhaps this was ) or 9234283676 ] Even after that how she complained in Sept 2011?This proves,principal forced her.

-Annexure -26

26.I sent principal email titled:-Cancel My TC on dated:- 5 Sept 2011 and said him to cancel the application dated:-26.8.2011. By the RTI response of principal of dated:-8.10.2012 in response of my RTI application of dated:-4.10.2012,principal has accepted that he has received this email.After this trapping by principal of 14 Sept 2011,I sent principal emails to prove him corrupt in the assembly by saying to prove me wrong in the assembly as he was saying on 14 Sept titled:- Rahul Kumar, I want to prove you corrupt,Stating the decision of principal wrong by emails titled:- I am right,Nature has given a lot of emotion,It’s great etc.Within these emails,this is said that principal has trapped me forcely but that child was helpful for my project.This is said that I will case against principal to the high Court of Patna.

 By the RTI response of principal of dated:-8.10.2012 in response of my RTI application of dated:-4.10.2012,principal has accepted that he has received these emails.The RTI response of principal of dated:-8.10.2012 in response of my RTI application of dated:-4.10.2012 have been appended in annexure 18.This proves,principal trapped me and expelled after complaining against principal on 14 Sept 2011  so i sent him emails but again he forced my father to write application on 28 Sept 2011 when he went to take TC.

A copy of all emails are appended under reference.

-Annexure-27

 27.Principal has himself accepted that he has received that email related to the philosophical reason of  living with that child ,Titled:-Sanjeev is a child of wonderful reflection..So this is evident that these reasons were not considered and on the other hand,principal had no any evidence as I have proved above.That’s why I was trapped with him forcely.

A copy of this email is appended under reference.

-Annexure-28

28.In the application of the mother of Sanjeev of dated:-6.7.2011  done to principal for the house changing,what problems her son were facing,nothing is said.This proves,all objections are fabricated after 6.7.2011.So the objections on her complaint of dated:-22.8.2011 and 23.9.2011 are fabricated.This point may be noted also that the child namely Sanjeev Suman has given written statement on 22.9.2011 to the principal  but the mother of the child  had complained before on 6.7.2011 and 22.8.2011 on the basis of statements of her son.How this is possible?

A copy of complaint is appended.

-Annexure-29

29.From the report of principal,this is evident that i was continously leave,my health was poor and i ran away.In spite of such conditions,complaints were lodged against me in Sept 2011-this can be said.If i was leave,sick and depressed as ran away then how complaints were lodged against me.What i could do against that child on that condition.This proves,either complaints are manufactured later or complaints are done because i complained against  principal to NVS,Headquarter.

Sir

By the all above noted evidences,this is cleared that the Bihar Human Rights Commission has verdicted  by error and i am trapped forcely by the principal.The commission was  prejudiced too as the matter relates between 2 boys so the commission understood me wrong baselessly and prejudicially without going through facts,evidences and clarification.This is evident,I am innocent and there was nothing relationship between myself and that child besides living for an ideological objective.This is also evident that principal has forced my father to write application of TC to protect himself  and he has manufactured documents against me after my approaching to the BHRC to protect himself and show me wrong artificially…

Therefore,you are requested to accept my writ petition in view of all above evidences which i have presented and  conduct hearing and take requisite actions.

You are specially requested to give me freedom from that objection.I have writ only for this purpose.

Thanking You

Yours

Rahul Kumar

S/O-Jagannath Ray

Vill+Post-Sughrain

Via-Bithan

Distt-Samastipur

PIN-848207

Encl:- As Above

Annexure 3

4.No medical test happened which i demanded and this is legal provision under Indian Evidence Act,section 164 A of CrPC  as well as guidelines of National Human Rights Commission.

5.That child said nothing against me in his written statement of dated:-22.9.2011 which can prove unnatural offence.But the commission was going through the complaints  of that mother which involve a lot of contradictory statements,don’t match to the statement of her son,which are fake,manufactured later in back date by the principal.

6.Not a single  student has claimed me and presented as  an eye-witness.Only sleepings are narrated as the other students’s version.

7.I was not given the opportunity to prove all documents against me manufactured,fake,baseless,fabricated and contradictory but i demanded this from the commission.As the commission has written that i have  evidence against the manufacturing of these documents and i have submitted papers in this regard .But nothing is written what was proved.This proves,i was not given the opportunity to prove these documents fake.Moreover,the commission sent me only the 5-paged report of principal and i received all complaints against me by RTI sent to the principal.So this was left to submit more responses against those complaints which are fake.I had prepared my responses but the commission was not liking to persue upon the matter by saying sometimes that my matter doesn’t relate to human rights and sometimes saying that this is not court.After listening my words against these documents,the commission said me that the commission will think upon my matter whether there will be further persuing or not.I was in the sense that if there will be further persuing then i will submit my more responses but the commission closed the case.Besides Indian Evidence Act,the commission has humiliated Section 13(1)(b),section 13(1)(d),section13(1)(e),section 13(3),section 13(4),section 13(5)  and section 16(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993.

8.My accused and witnesses on my  behalf and  the witnesses on behalf of my accused were not called which i demanded.Besides Indian Evidence Act,the commission has humiliated Section 13(1)(a),13(1)(e) and section 13(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993.

9.No inquiry conducted which i demanded.In my response which the commission has explained,i have demanded to enquiry Sanjeev Suman,his elder Sanjeet Kashyap,his roommates who have given statements before principal in child friendly environment and all others who can be anyhow related.I demaned to inquiry documents manufactured against me  and all others related things but nothing such happened.But no enquiry conducted.Besides Indian Evidence Act,the commission has humiliated Section 12,section  13(1)(a),section 13(1)(b), section 13(1)(d),section13(1)(e),section 13(3),section 13(4),section 13(5)   of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993.

10.Even my response was not studied.Only the response of that principal was read before my naked eyes.As the commission has said in the  order that my matter  involves many disputed questions.But this is not said what disputed questions my matter  involve and what disputed questions prove.This proves,my response is not studied.In my response,only this was studied which is on front in first page that my matter is under the consideration of National Human Rights Commission also.The commission has only said in his order that i have submitted that my father was forced to write application.But my father has submitted application that he was forced and which is proved how he was forced and the application is enclosed with my response.This means,the commission didn’t read the application of my father and only listened what i said before the commission.This is possible only when the commission doesn’t read my response.No enquiry is conducted,no medical test of victim and accused  happened,no my medical report considered where i am shown  fit,no call and emails details record traced,no register was checked,no psychological problems considered,my other objection against principal like refusing to allot humanities due to an article by imposing condition of expulsion,imposing condition of expulsion in the case of living in tension,what principal had problems from me as i was working against corruption,what principal mistreated on the day of trapping,why i complained against principal to his headquarter etc,etc are not discussed in the order of the commission. Faults within documents against me  were not observed,i was trapped after complaining against principal and after 6 months and mostly documents against me are also of after complaining against principal and after 6 months -which were not observed.The commission didn’t observe the fact that i had  a philosophical objective behind living with that child but i was trapped.My evidences like all recordings of principal,statements of students in my favour were not considered by the commission.The commission didn’t observe this fact that i myself has been sexually assaulted by my one relative but i was trapped with a boy becuase who was not my relative and belonged to different and upper caste in the view of my accused..Besides Indian Evidence Act,the commission has humiliated Section 16(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993. if commission was observing me as an offender 

These all were not  considered/observed/demand not granted  because my response was not studied. 

11.My evidences like all recordings of principal,statements of students in my favour were not considered by the commission.If this would be considered then commission would opt the policy of proving everything and then final decision would be given as the commission not did.Besides Indian Evidence Act,the commission has humiliated Section 13(1)(a) and section 13(1)(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993.

12.No call details record,email details record were observed which i have explained in my response and which my prove helpful to prove principal wrong.No register was checked which can give the details whether such incidents happened or not.The commission didn’t read my response so how these details would be observed.Besides Indian Evidence Act,the commission has humiliated Section 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993.

13.This fact was not considered that mostly  documents against me are manufactured in the date of Sept 2011-after complaining against principal and after 6 months.Faults related to date,sign,seal,writing in past form instead of present,writing by a person other than complainant etc  were not observed which all documents involve.One document is prepared on the date of my going to Delhi and one is of 2 days before of this incident.So these are also of after 5 months.

14.If this is assumed that i was expelled then this is done also after complaining against principal and after 6 months.I stated before the commission that i was expelled after 6 months and after complaining against principal.So how this was disciplinary action.

15.There were many complaints against me  including complaints to DM and SDM but not a single action was taken against me [as principal wrote in his report] .So this was evident that these are manufactured when i complained against principal to the commission because TC had been issued to me that time and i was no more in school so no action was taken.

16.I had no more health related problem which principal explained.My medical report clears this.But the commission went alongwith statement of principal.

17.The commission didn’t obseve my other allegations against principal like refusing to allot humanities due to an article by imposing condition of expulsion,imposing condition of expulsion in the case of living in tension,what principal had problems from me as i was working against corruption,what principal mistreated on the day of trapping,why i complained against principal to his headquarter etc,etc.

18.The commission didn’t observe the fact that i had  a philosophical objective behind living with that child but i was trapped.

19.The commission didn’t observe this fact that i myself has been sexually assaulted by my one relative but i was trapped with a boy becuase who was not my relative and belonged to different and upper caste in the view of my accused.

20.The commission didn’t observe this fact that principal has manufactured fake documents against me as the complaint done to District Magistrate,Samastipur and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur.I gave evidences  but commission didn’t observe.The reply of RTI application and Awamanana Notice received from DM office clearly proves that the complaint is fake.Principal has managed with some officers of collectorate-this is evident by the response of RTI and Awamanana.In spite of this,the commission didn’t consider.Indian Evidence Act,the commission has humiliated Section 13(1)(b),section 13(1)(d),section13(1)(e),section 13(3),section 13(4),section 13(5)  of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993.

21.This point may be noted as the commission said that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear to be  in the nature of disciplinary measure that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011[which i have written in my complaint of dated:-19.12.2011 done to the commission ] but complaints of that mother to SDM and DM are of dated:-23.9.2011 ,that child and PK Acharya  are of dated:-22.9.2011.By the phone recording of principal,evidence through media,statements of students,emails sent to the principal,call details record  etc,this is evident that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011.

22.I  had to face many psychological problems and still i am facing but this was not consirdered.This proves,injustice done with me.

23.The commission wanted to close case anyhow,anyway.So the commission started to say that my matter doesn’t belong to human rights.The commission changed pretext again and started to say that this is not court where i will prove and present witness.As the commission was saying wrong so nothing such is written in the order that the matter doesn’t relate to human rights and the commission is not appropriate place for proving and presenting witness.In stead of this the commission has issued order as stated above and closed my case anyhow,anyway.

In view of the all noted points,this can be said that the commission has done decision by error and the commission was prejudiced too for 3 below reasons:-

1.In this view that the matter relates between two boys so something wrong was done.Unless why the matter between two boys were flashed and bombarded and why complaints were done against me by some people.So commission was prejudiced.

2.The commission neglected me as i am a boy.

3.In the view of the commission,my accused and  opponents  were teachers,principal,officers, mother etc and the commission went through such things that  a mother  can’t complain falsely ,a teacher  and princpal can’t  object forcely,an officer can’t  help principal to manufacture documents against me.

That’s why the commission didn’t approach to the truth whether my father was forced or not,documents are manufactured or not and give decision baselessly.

                                                           Annexure-30

         1.The Issuance of TC on the request of my father

 This can be crossed by many evidences.

 1.The application for the issuance of TC had been given twice.One on dated 26.8.2011 from the NVS Headquarter and other on 28.9.2011.How the application can be given twice?How the Deputy Commissioner NVS,Patna can be reported twice?

 2.By the phone recording of principal of dated:-4.9.2011,this is evident that application is given twice.By this phone recording,this is evident that principal is going to expell me.9471090180 to 9431691667 conversation held where recorded.

3. By the fax and call details records,this can be analyzed that application had been given on 26.8.2011 also.As SK Gurg[landline perhaps] firstly talked to principal[9431691667] by saying to forward my application to Deputy Commissioner[landline perhaps] and he talked to Deputy Commissioner to say to sign.As SK Gurg sent a copy of this application through fax to the principal and principal reported to the deputy commissioner through fax.

4. I talked to Hindustan,Darbhanga and this was advised to talk to Hindustan,Samastipur.Numbers can be traced from the front page of Hindustan.I talked from 9471090180 or 8809810789.I called but the correspondent was not present.

5.I sent principal email titled:-Cancel My TC on dated:- 5 Sept 2011 and said him to cancel the application dated:-26.8.2011. By the RTI response of principal of dated:-8.10.2012 in response of my RTI application of dated:-4.10.2012,principal has accepted that he has received this email.

 6.For this matter,my father talked to principal on 3 Sept 2011 and 12 Sept 2011.After saying this by principal that I have complained against him,I have said him corrupt so he will not keep me in school,On 3 Sept 2011,my father talked to Girish Chandra,Assisstant Commissioner ,NVS,Patna and then to SK Gurg,Assisstant Commissioner,NVS headquarter .9471090180 to 9431024821 and 9471090180 to 09868855597.Both of Assisstant Commissioner refused to say principal why principal was saying such.

 7.I went to school alongwith my father on 14 Sept 2011.The location of Number 8809810789 and 9471090180 can be traced.From school,I called to SK Gurg after trapping and phone was not being received so I cut.

 8.On 17 Sept 2011,I sent Hindustan,Muzaffarpur email by pointing out that principal has expelled me as I have complained against him and I am not able to writ to High Court so I expect active role.On 21 Sept 2011,Pragati Mehta talked with me through landline 0621 -6610730.Sanjay Katiyar sent me sms before this to call.Again,this team talked to the principal.Principal accepted that he expelled me due to the written complaint of that mother done to principal.This was informed to me by Sanjay Katiyar on 22 Sept 2011.8809810789 to 9771433950.

 This proves following things:-

 1.Principal trapped and expelled me.Because principal is saying that he didn’t do such.So principal has cheated media and understood media weak,helpless and toy of this system as principal didn’t keep me even after saying by media and then forcing my father to write application for TC to remove evidence.

 2.No complaint was done to District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate.Because principal informed only about the complaint of that mother done to principal as the reason of expulsion.So this complaint is fake and prepared artificial in back date by principal to protect himself.

 3.No complaint was done to principal by that child,PK Acharya and GS Choudhary.Because principal informed only about the complaint of that mother done to principal as the reason of expulsion.So this complaint is fake and prepared artificial in back date by principal to protect himself.

 So in my case,the evidence through media must be valid in the case,if i will be able to prove that such incidents like accepting of principal before media happened.I will be able to prove because i have call details record,SMS records and email records.

 Media can help to give me justice.

 In my case,media must not be observed only as media.Media have played a role of conscious citizen in my case and tried to keep me again in school.

 This was not sting operation,TV sting but this was an active operation,which is greater than sting operation. After 22 Sept 2011,again i informed Hindustan,Muzaffarpur on 27 Sept,28 Sept and subsequent times that referring to the complaint of that mother is only the excuse of principal.Sanjay Katiyar had again sent me SMS[9771433950 to 8809810789] on 27 Sept to say me to inform him in short about all happenings.I informed by emails.648rahul@gmail.com to muzaffarpur@livehindustan.com and sanjay_katiyar2006@rediffmail.com

 9.I had been fit.So I went to school on 23 Aug 2011.I had only normal heart based problems which was no more.I never consulted to cardiologist again after consulting once on 18 July 2011.There is no any base to say by principal that my father took TC on poor health ground.So baselessly,principal forced to write this in the view that I will face many problems now as he had trapped me.Whatever medical report is submitted by principal to the BHRC must be observed and matched to my medical report.Principal would prepare fake medical report also.

10.Vistor’s book present  on 14 Sept 2011 at the main gate of JNV Samastipur may be traced.My father has signed in this book and entered time of arrival and departure(may be).This proves,my father went to school on 14 Sept 2011.Principal has said that my father came only till absconding-till 24 Aug 2011 and lastly came on 28 Sept 2011.This means,if my father went to school on 14 Sept 2011 then wrong was done so principal has not explained about 14 Sept 2011.So if my father went to school,i went to school alongwith my father,then principal did wrong because principal has not explained about 14 Sept  2011 like not explaining about my complaining against him to the NVS,Headquarter.

Reasons behind forcing my father to write application

He is facing many physical problems.His bone of right leg is fractured.So he is unable to go hither and tither frequently to fight case against principal.He has problem of blood pressure and blood sugar.Due to this also,he is not able to go hither and tither frequently to fight case.Due to BP problems,he can be fearful,perplexed and this can be resulted in writing application under pressure of principal.Moreover,i was being tortured in school.So he could not be oppressive against this forcing of principal because if i would be in school,then also i would be tortured.

All complaints against me

 There are many contradictory statements for a particular incident and many faults related to date,sign,seal,writing etc in all complaints.

 1.Complaint done to the the District  Magistrate,Samastipur by Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev has been proved fake in my main report.

In this regard,following points may be noted also.

If this is assumed that complaint is done by post then this is not possible to seal and give application No to this complaint within 3-4 days. I have submitted application on 2.11.2012 to meet DM,Application No-10218.The application is sealed and application No is given immediately. This proves that the complaint is fake,prepared artificially in back date.

 I went to meet to DM but he was in meeting and this is said by staffs that he will not meet today so I submitted application.I want to know from DM whether complaint is done to him or this is fake so I went to meet.

This may be noted in this context also that in last of the RTI response of dated:-11.9.2011,principal has said that no other information is available in this regard after by saying that information has been provided alongwith the supplied document which is complaint done to the DM regarding my question when complaint done to DM.But the complaint was referred to the principal by the DM so principal must have other information in this regard.This proves,the complaint is prepared later in back date.Because here,principal was recalling this thing in his mind that complaint is fake and in this sense surely there must not be other information in this regard.Accordily,by recalling that the complaint is fake,principal said that no other information is available in this regard.This is said that information has been provided alongwith the complaint and no other information is available in this regard to hide this conspiracy also that the applicant has signed on 23.8.2011 and the complaint is sealed and application No is given on 26.9.2011.So this was not obioused when complaint was done to the DM.That’s why principal replied such.This proves,the complaint is fake. 

The registar must be checked to know whether any complaint is done on  that date said by applicant or not,any order is issued on that date said by officer/applicant or not.

 2.Complaint done to the Sub-divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Samastipur by Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev has been proved fake in my main report.In this regard,following points may be also noted:-

In the RTI Response of principal of dated:-11.9.2012,this is said regarding my questions when complaint lodged to SDM,on which time,what is the case No. that information has been provided alongwith the supplied document which is complaint done to the SDM.But  no date,case No and time is mentioned in the complaint.This proves,principal is accepting that if such things are not mentioned in the complaint then the complaint is fake.Secondly,this proves that the complaint is fake so no case No,date and time is present but principal has said that these are available alongwith the complaint to hide the conspiracy.If principal has not provided such informations and such informations are not available to him.This means,no complaint is lodged.If this is assumed that by mistaking case No,date etc was not printed/written to the complaint and such was given for the application later then also principal would know this later as he would be informed later by the complainant because the complaint is sent to the BHRC and without case No,Date this can be sent  and thus principal would have to provide these informations.But he has not provided.This proves,the complaint is fake.If this is said that he is not authorized to provide such informations and SDM is authorized then why he supplied me the document which is complaint done to the SDM,complaint done to the DM and order of DM office of dated:-29.9.2011.

The registar must be checked to know whether any complaint is done on  that date said by applicant or not,any order is issued on that date said by officer/applicant or not.

 3.The complaint of that child is written by his elder.No sign of that child is present.This is filed by PK Acharya as the enclosure of his complaint as PK Acharya has underlined some lines,PK Acharya has signed in the complaint and this is written through the housemaster.The complaint of the PK Acharya is of dated 22.9.2011.So the sign of principal must be of 22.9.2011 but the sign of principal is of 20.9.2011. This proves that the complaint is fake,prepared artificially in back date.In place of i/my/me/myself[mujhe/maine],the name of that child is written or the name of that child is cut and then I [Mujhe/maine ] is written.This proves that complaint is written by someone else and that is the writing of his elder.

 4.My evidences against the complaint of PK Acharya have been discussed in my main report.

 5.In the complaint of that mother done to the principal of dated:-22.8.2011,no sign of principal is present This proves that the complaint is fake,prepared artificially in back date.This point may be noted also that the complaint is of 22.8.2011-before very few days complaining against principal in August 2011 and after of 5 months as all matters are of till March 2011.In this complaint,the matter related to SMS/Emails are only current.So only complaint related to SMS/emails may be done on dated:-22.8.2011.

 6.The complaint done by GS Chaudhary has been proved fake in my main report.In this regard, this point may be noted also that the complaint can be manufactured  in the date of absconding only to show that I was wrong so I ran away.So this is done to create plus point in the favour of that system and mislead the fact.There is only conspiracy everywhere.Principal was not present on 24.8.2011 but he has signed on 24.8.2011 on this complaint.This can be proved by the following evidences.

 1.Principal reported to Deputy Commissioner ,NVS Patna on 25.8.2011-next day.

A copy of this report is appended under reference alongwith this application.

-Annexure 30/1

 2.Nisha Kumari,senior most teacher/PGT Hindi,  wrote application to lodge FIR on the same date.

A copy of this application is appended under reference alongwith this application.

-Annexure 30/2

 3.Nisha Kumari wrote application to my father on this day.

A copy of this application is appended under reference alongwith this application.

-Annexure 30/3

 4.Nisha Kumari signed in the report of GS Chaudhary of this day,where my

 absconding is narrated addressed to principal.

A copy of this report is appended under reference alongwith this application.

-Annexure 30/4

 7.The number 8002699205,which is written by the applicant that she[Pintu Kumari] was being threatened and abused by a person and she believes that the person is connected to me,is activated on 4.4.2011.I had been leave on 3.4.2011 after appearing in class 10 exam.No  any telephone conversation/SMS held between 8002699205 and my any number.Details may be observed.The applicant has not explained about this number in any other place where there was converstation between this number and my any number besides this threatening and abusing at delay night.This proves, i don’t know this number.Moreover,2 numbers which are explained by which she was being threatened and abused are  not in use according to the customer care.This not only proves that she was not being  threatened and abused but this also proves that the complaints are fake,prepared artificially later in back date when I complained against principal to the Human Rights Commission.Because such sorts of false objection like threatening and abusing can be written only when i was not in school.Unless,such sorts of objection could be crossed easily in my presence.So such sorts of objection would not be written.That’s why the all complainst are fake,manufactured later so such sorts of objection is present.That’s why such sorts of other objections like my father and mother threatened the applicant,i myself was threatening through telephone /SMS,i illtreated with BP Singh,sending SMS/emails to Sanjeev etc also prove that the all complaints are fake,manufactured later in back date.Secondly,these all other objections,which are false and fabricated as i have proved,are done  to create surplus point against me so that by observing such records,this can be said that i was doing wrong with that child.They are not stable to the real issue of unnatural offence and creating many other objections falsely.If they would be right,they would focus themself for this issue.So they are trying to deviate the law.

In complaint to principal of dated:-22.8.2011 and DM and SDM[same complaint is done to both of the place],of dated:-23.9.2011,this is said that she was being threatened and abused by my other source.How the threatening can be continued where she complained to principal on 22.8.2011- 1 month before of 23.9.2011.Princiapl could take action against me due to this and thus she would be not threatened and abused.But she was being threatened and abused after this complaining to the principal also.This can be possible only when the all complaints are written at the same time but here there is time interval of 1 month,That’s why the complaints are not written on 22.8.2011 and 23.9.2011 in real.This is written at same time,not during interval of time after my approaching to the BHRC.That’s why the objection which could be solved by principal one month before is written and  action is continued  in complaint of 1 month later also.

That mother has been forced,pressurized and threatened by the principal and his connectivity to do such fake complaints because why a mother will assist principal by complaining artificially, when I complained against principal.

 Only above noted faults are competent enough to prove myself right and principal wrong but there are many contradictory statements which also prove that objection against me is fabricated.

8. How the complaints to the District Magistrate,Samastipur and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai were signed by the applicant on the same date of 23.9.2011? [If the  complaint is not done by post] By mistaking,the applicant has signed on 23.8.2011 in complaint to DM.The both complaints can be signed by the applicant on the same date only when the complaint is manufactured later unless,this is not possible for an applicant to go to both of the place  on same day and lodge complaints.

.This may  be noted here that either i was expelled or  mostly complaints against me are done after 6 months,after my running away to NVS,Headquarter,New Delhi and after complaining against prinicipal  where i was leave,depressed and ill.

 Contradictory Statements within these Complaints

 1.There are many contradictory statements related to the objection related to that child.In the complaint of that child,nothing about unnatural offence is said.Even he is not confirmed whether I slept or not.Sometimes,he got known that I came to his bed when he was sleeping.There are 3 ways to feel this.1.He would be sleeping and I came to his bed and he knew when he awaked.2.He would awake in the morning and see me in the morning.3.He would be informed by someone else.

 In the all above conditions,nothing like physical relationship is obvioused.

 In the complaint of the mother of that child,this is said that his child informed her that I used to come to his bed at 10-11 P:M and he used to prohibit me but I didn’t listen that child.According to the statement of that child,this can be said that the objection of his mother is fabricated as she is saying different from her child.

 In the complaint of PK Acharya,this is said that forcing a child to sleep with a senior is indisciplinary act.But that child has said nothing like this that he was forced to sleep.

 In the report of principal,this is said that he was forced to stay with me,not focused to sleeping.

In the report of AK Tiwari,this is said that i used to sleep at night.Means,he was not forced.

 The all contradictory statement proves that I was trapped forcely.

 The child has said that sometimes he also slept to my bed and when he awaked in morning then he knew that he was on my bed.This is not written by any other.This means,he slept as he came to my room and due to being child he got sleeping and then slept.If he would be living forcely with me and would be forced to stay on my bed at night and this would be resulted in sleeping then he would be known already instead of knowing in the morning.This proves,he was not forced to live and the objection of that child is fabricated and consequence of the pressure of principal.So this can be said that he was living willingly with me.That’s why my behavior was good as he said that my behaviour was not good.Secondly,he used to know in the morning.But if wrong would be done at night then he would be known at night that he has been slept on my bed.This proves,only he slept.Nothing wrong was done.Similarly,he only expresses his apprehension  about my sleeping in his room.This never proves physical contact.

He himself is saying in the starting of the application that he became my friend and he is saying that [after 8 March 2011] when some boys complained to a teacher and that teacher complained to principal and principal said to minimize the time of living but now he didn’t want to live with me.This means,he wanted to live with me before this as he said that after this complaining,now he didn’t want to live with me.So he is saying false that he was forced in any form.Secondly,principal said to minimize the time of living this means,he was willingly living with me,he had no problem from me so he didn’t complain anything against me.That’s why principal could be able to only minimize the time.

 GS Chaudhary,my house master has said that my roommate informed him but according to the child ,his roommates informed a sir[his associate house master] and all thing happened after this.So the statement of GS Chaudhary is false and fabricated.Secondly,if this is assumed that my roommates informed him about sleeping then why he didn’t complain to principal or my father then.Why he is saying this on the date of 24 Aug 2011?This proves,his statement is false and fabricated.

This is said by the child that his roommates[bhaijee] informed that i came to his room at night and cried to open the door.This proves,the child didn’t complain against me.In his this complaint,he has only presented others as the complainants.This proves,everything was done without his statement.

 Why the child went to complain in Sept but the all matters were passed 6 months ago.He could complain when his roommates complained.When his mother complained,he could complain.He had support a lot of others so he could complain.But he didn’t complain even everyone was complaining.This proves,everyone was complaining falsely and prejudicially and he was alongwith me.

 As I complained against torturing created by some students for me and that child.How i could be able to complain against some students who complained?This can be only possible when that child was alongwith me.Because if he would be against me then i would not be able to complain as students were complaining against me so he could complain by getting such opportunity.Secondly,my complaining against those students can be valid only when he could help me to give witness against those students.This proves,he was accompany with me and complained against those students.This also proves that those boys were torturing.

There were 14 other students in the room of Sanjeev. In spite of this,no one observed anything wrong.There were 7 other students in my room.In spite of this,no one observed anything wrong.This proves,nothing wrong was done.

As this is said in the complaint of Sanjeev that his seniors[Bhaijee] informed a teacher that i used to come at night and cried to open the door.This proves,the door was locked.Then how i went to his room at night.This can be said that i used to say his roommates to open the door.They were 14.So this was not possible to force them to open the door.So i was not going in his room at night.If this is said that in rare case i used to go his room at night when door was not locked,then they were 14 students.Why any one didn’t investigate any time what i was doing at night to come in room.This proves,nothing such happened.If this is said that i said to open the door and the door was opened and i went to sleep on the bed of Sanjeev then how they didn’t investigate what i was doing as the  roommates theirself opened the room and could be awaked.This proves,nothing such was happening.Sanjeev  is not known about this knocking of door as he is saying that sometimes he got known when he was sleeping that i used to come to his bed at night.This means,he is not known about this knocking of door and coming at night as stated by his seniors because he only got known[felt like this] that i used to come .This proves,nothing such was happening.If nothing such was happening then this statement of Sanjeev is false that sometimes he got known that i used to come to his bed because even he is not known whether i knocked the door or not and he himself is saying in the unknown sense that bhaijee complained that i  came at night.If he was unknown about these but must be known as others were,then how he got known sometimes when he was sleeping that i used to come on his bed.

Secondly,if he only got known that i used to come then nothing such happened as his seniors stated that i knocked the door and come at night.These all are contradictory and fabricated and i have proved such.

This is said in the complaint of the mother of Sanjeev done to principal that i went to his room at 10-11 P:M and forced him to sleep with me which doesn’t match to the statement of her son-as i have already described.Here,Sanjeev has said about delay night when he was sleeping but his mother is saying of that time when he went to sleep.It’s contradictory.Whether it may be any but Sanjeev could resist because there were 14 others in the room.He didn’t resist.This proves,nothing such happened.As this is said that he was forced to live with me.On that condition,he would resist and oppose  surely.So this also proves that he was not forced to stay with me.

The child has informed only about happenings as if he is writing his autobiography.This was complaint and a complaint must have an objective-what he wants to solve the problem,what action he wants.This proves that the complaint is written later in back date when I was not present then how he would expect solution and action.

 2.In the complaint to the sub-Divisonal Magistrate and District Magistrate,this is said that enquiry was conducted on 6 July 2011 and unnatural offence was proved.In the principal’s reporting to the deputy commissioner,this is said that an enquiry was conducted and house of child was changed.This means,unnatural offence was not obvioused because this would be said directly in his reporting.In the complaint of that child,this is said that my father meet to his mother before principal and I was directed to leave his accompany and he gave his application to change the house and changed.This means,there was only meeting.Nothing enquiry was conducted.Nothing unnatural offence was cleared.The application for the changing the house is given by the mother of that child and even no sign of that child is present.This proves that the child had no problem and I was trapped forcely and he is subjected by principal to write this forcely .In this application of the child,nothing like unnatural offence is written and there is no mentioning of enquiry.If enquiry would be conducted and unnatural offence would be obvioused then in this case enquiry report would be prepared by the principal.So everything is said false to protect the principal and create plus point against me.In the complaint of that mother done to principal of dated:-22.8.2011,only about sleeping is narrated.This means,she is saying false in the complaint to SDM and DM that enquiry was conducted and unnatural offence was proved .

 In the enquiry report of AK Tiwari,Assisstant Commissioner ,this is said , that mother has written on the basis of the statement of her child that I was doing unnatural offence.But the complaint of that child din’t say such.In complaint to principal of dated 22.8.2011,this is said that her son informed her about forcely sleeping on her son’s bed and forcely staying on my bed.This means,her son didn’t inform her about unnatural offence.In the complaint to SDM and DM,this is said that by the enquiry this was proved [but I have proved that no enquiry happened .]This means,her son didn’t inform her.So there are a lot of contradictory statements and this proves that everything is false,fabricated and baseless.

 3.Why there are 4 contradictory statements related to BP Singh which i have explained  in my main report?Objection related to BP Singh has been discussed in main report.

 4.Objection related to SMS/emails have been discussed in main report.

 5.In the complaint to the SDM and DM,this is said that principal was giving me TC so i ran away.How this is said in this complaint?This proves that i was expelled so such is written in back date to prove me wrong. In this compalint,this is said that principal said my father to take me alongwith him to home and treat me mentally.This is said to prove me wrong.But principal is himself saying in his report to the BHRC that i himself gave application for leave on health ground.In this complaint,this is said that my father and mother called her on 24.8.2011-on the day of absconding- from 9234283676 and 9234014790 to 9334697916 and threatened..But she herself called from 9334697916[perhaps,may be her another numbers also]and started to clarify her errors.My father and mother were not together on 24.8.2011.My mother was at home and father at JNV Samastipur.Then how both of the person threatened her by the Nos.9234014790 and 9234283676  whereas my father was possessing another Nos.9471090180 and 8809810789 on that day. So such contradictory statements prove that principal has done wrong so he started to object me in this manner to prove me wrong by the medium of this mother.

In fact,everything would be OK if principal would not show his brutality after my complaining against him.Because the mother of Sanjeev herself talked through telephone from my mother on 24.8.2011-on the date of absconding  and started to say when my mother said that there will be your responsibility if something wrong will happen to me what she did,principal would not give her to talk to her sons.She was clearly indicating that she was facing problems to talk to her sons as one was in Arawali B and another was in Udaygiri B-approx 250 metres away.So the mother of Sanjeev had changed his mentality.Even she asked on 25.8.2011-next day through telephone after my appearing in Delhi whether i will live now in school or not.So everything would be OK if principal would not do anything.CDR-call details record 9334697916[perhaps] to 9234283676 or 9234014790[perhaps,she talked to this number] must be traced.

 6.In the report of principal sent to the BHRC,this is said that by observing the gravity of situation and unsound health and behaviour of myself,my father took TC.In the enquiry report of AK Tiwari,this is said that his mother informed all thing to my father and thus my father decided to take TC.According to the report of AK Tiwari,this can be concluded that there was not such gravity of situation as he didn’t explain about complaint done to SDM and DM.So principal has prepared fake complaints-this can be said.This can be concluded that my health was not poor as AK Tiwari only explained about the informing of his mother to my father.So this can be said that principal has forced my father to write application on poor health ground. AK Tiwari managed with principal and protected principal.But an investigation officer can protect a person only to the extent of false witnesses .So principal only gave witnesses of that child,that mother and some teachers and what principal said,AK Tiwari wrote.But the complaint to DM and SDM was fake so principal and his mother didn’t inform AK Tiwari by the mouth.But in the report of principal submitted to AK Tiwari,Annexure 12 and S.No.7 is present where there is explanation of complaint to SDM.So on the date of 12.2.2012 when principal submitted his report,principal could be able to prepare fake complaint addressed to SDM only.Between 12.2.2012 to 1.3.2012-before submitting report to the BHRC,principal prepared fake complaint addressed to DM also and included annexure 13 and S.No. 8 in his report.

 If this is assumed that his mother informed my father then why she informed in Sept 2011,not before.So artificially this fact is presented to prove that his mother informed and my father took TC.If she informed before then why TC is taken after a large interval.This proves,i was trapped forcely so such facts are presented to show such situation at the time of taking TC.There is no evidence of this thing that my father was informed by her.After coming from Delhi,my father talked to principal only.There is no conversation and meeting described by principal with that mother.By the sms and emails sent to her,this is evident that i informed her and she was prejudiced.This is evident that i myself wanted justification but principal didn’t justify the objection.Her mother also didn’t come for justification.

 This should be noted that principal has prepared mostly fake complaints on dated:- 22 and 23 Sept 2011.So this is prepared at the time of taking TC to show such situation where TC can be taken.

 7.In the complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate [SDM]and District Magistrate[DM],this is said that the son of applicant informed her that her son was troubled by me.In complaint to principal,this is said that she came to know the friendship between myself and her son by some teachers and then she talked to her son in this matter and found insecured.In her complaint to principal of dated:-22.8.2011,this is said that she asked her son his news and he said against me. In the principal’s reporting to Deputy Commissioner,NVS,Patna this is said that otherwise talkings were existing among the students and this led to the knowing of her.In the statement of Sanjeev,this is said that his roommates informed a teacher about crying to open door and coming at night and the teacher informed the principal.This statement of the child namely Sanjeev Suman directly indicates that such informing of students and teachers led to know about the matter by the mother of Sanjeev and he has not informed his mother as he didn’t inform that teacher and principal but his roommates informed that teacher.In the report of AK Tiwari,this is said  whatever the child informed his mother,on that basis his mother has written that i was doing unnatural offence with her son.But in the statement of the child and his mother,nothing such is written that the child informed his mother such and  the child has not written such.So AK Tiwari wrote this line forcely. So such contradictory statements prove that everything is false.In this reporting,principal further submitted that when i couldn’t be able to alter the view of students and school management,i became offended,tried to hide my identity and left the school-ran away.Here,principal is directly indicating that i was trapped only on the basis of otherwise talking of students.Otherwise talkings can be evidence only when this is claimed by anybody that he observed wrong.But here this is obvioused by this reporting that there was otherwise talking only due to friendly relationship between 2 boys of 10 and 6-only due to prejudices.This proves that i was trapped prejudicially.Why i was need to alter the view of students and school management?This proves,itself that i was only trapped on the basis of the view of others.There was no role of that child.Unless,this would be written that i couldn’t be able to change the view and statement  of  Sanjeev and this resulted in my absconding.

 8.GS Chaudhary has complained on the date of my absconding and he has written that i ran away on 24 Aug 2011.If the complaint would be current then today would be attached alongwith 24 Aug 2011.This is written that i came on 23 Aug 2011.If this would be written current then this would be written yesterday alongwith 23 Aug 2011.GS Chaudhary has said that my father started to say on 24 Aug 2011 that i have been kidnapped and case will be lodged against principal and some teachers.If this would be current then this would be written that my father has said today /my father is saying that i have been kidnapped and case will be lodged against principal and some teachers.This proves, the complaint is prepared later in back date.GS Chuadhary has written today in place of 24.8.2011 in his reporting of my absconding to the principal.This is written that i ran away on 24.8.2011.If this would be current then this would be written that toady,24.8.2011,i have run away,not ran away.This is said that my father started to say that i have been kidnapped.How he came to know what happened to me or not where i was unknown.This proves,he was known that nothing happened to me.This can be only possible when i had been traced.On 24.8.2011,i was not traced.So this complaint is after of 24.8.2011.In other words,this is fake.

In this complaint of GS Chaudhary,this is said only about sometimes sleeping of that boy in my room and my sometimes sleeping in his room.This proves,only sleeping was obvioused and i was trapped only on the basis of sleeping.In this complaint,this is said that this is prohibited to live with junior students as per the rule of NVS.This proves,Sanjeev was willingly living with me and i was forcely prohibited to not live as he was junior.This is said that i often found in the room of Sanjeev.As he is saying that i was often found in his room.This is possible only when Sanjeev was not forced to live.Overall,GS Chaudhary has expressed his problem only due to excess proximity and this proves that i was trapped only due to this.

 9. In the reporting to the Deputy Commissioner,NVS,patna,this is only said that the child has expressed his emotional problems due to me.This proves, he said anything other than he was sexually assaulted or forced to live.The complaint of the child is of 22 sept 2011 and principal reported on 25 Aug 2011,then how the child expressed his emotional problems?Principal is himself saying that both of the boys were always seen together and i was maintaining close proximity.Then how he was forced? In complaint to principal by that mother in starting this is said that she came to know about access proximity by some teachers.This proves,everyone was known about excess proximity only.So whatever is written by everyone including that child and mother is false and fabricated.If everyone was known about excess proximity,this means that child had no problem.He never informed anything  to any and informed only he was asked.This is surprising because if everyone was observing and talking about this proximity then why he[Sanjeev] didn’t inform his problem to any?In the enquiry report of AK Tiwari,nothing like forcing is written.There is objection to the excess proximity like living,eating and sleeping together in this report.These all things where excess proximity have been objected prove that i am trapped only on the basis of prejudice and the boy is that if two boys of some age diffences live together having no family and social relationship can be wrong to the extent of sexual relationship.But i myself has been sexually assaulted by my one closed family relative.If there was no any prejudice then how the matter is bombarded and flashed only due to proximity where that child said nothing about sexual relationship and no one observed anything.This common sense must be observed.Only on the basis of sleeping,only very few times sleeping[I have proved this],not many times as principal explained ,I was trapped without such statement of child and any eye-witness.

 As far as sleeping is considered, this can be said that a father sleeps with his son/daughter,a mother sleeps with her son/daughter.Is a father/mother homosexual/heterosexual with his/her son/daughter?If nature has provided same character to a father/mother like me and he/she can’t be wrong but I have same character but I can be wrong.This is only prejudice.Even a brother/sister/relative sleeps together but can’t be wrong and two person having no relationship can be wrong.This is only prejudice.

 Principal has accused me to have a mobile but this is only the way to mislead the law by creating plus point against me.Principal and all teachers have mobile.If I can misuse by the mobile then principal and teachers have also same character naturally ,why they have mobile.

10.One thing may be noted here that all complaints against me done to the principal are written in white paper which is used for print out.My father application for the issuance of TC is also written in this white paper. This paper is available in principal’s chamber.This paper is not used in common.But all documents filed  to principal are written in this white paper,which is available in principal’s chamber.This proves,these all documents are manufactured in principal’s chamber.If my father would have to give application or some one would have to complain against me,they would write application before not in principal’s chamber and thus application would be filed.But in all cases,applications are written in principal’s chamber.This proves,no one was pre-planned to file application.This means,principal forced these all to write application.That’s why principal forced my father to write application for the issuance of TC,principal forced the mother of Sanjeev to complain against me,principal forced the brother of Sanjeev[in place of Sanjeev] to write application,principal forced GS Chaudhary and PK Acharya to write application.

 Other Evidences

 1.Evidences received through Awamanana Notice and RTI response of collectorate,Samastipur

 No reply of Awamanana Notice according to my noted point:-

 1.Why DM referred my complaint after 6 months and no action was taken against me 2 .but if he would refer immediately and action would be taken or 3.if action would be taken if he would refer after 6 months- then there would be solution in my favour due to medical test and other provisions which give me proper opportunity to keep my favour.No reply according to my notice clearly proves that if complaint is done to DM then this was wrong and conspiracy. as the complaint is done after 6 months and no  action is taken.

 Now this has been proved that the complaint is fake by the reply of one officers of collectorate,Samastipur.This has been proved also that there is fixing between principal and some officers of collectorate lower than DM.I don’t know about DM.Collectorate has refused to provide order of dated:-29.9.2011 and report submitted by principal in response of awamanana notice by saying that principal has already supplied me.Here,the question is that the documents are not supplied because principal has prepared fake documents so how the officers would supply documents.By supplying documents in this condition,they may trap themself also alongwith principal.But by not supplying and saying that principal has already supplied,they may protect principal also.This might be possible also that such officers helped principal to prepare fake documents so they didn’t supply.In this condition also,they protected principal and themself.Officers lower than DM have done such,it seems as the officer on special duty of zila gopniya prasakha has replied Awamanana Notice and RTI application and the officer incharge of district public grievance cell has issued order of dated:-29.9.2011.

 Collectorate has replied same line in response of my some questions which is replied same by principal by stating that information sought is not information as per 2(F) of RTI Act,2005.Secondly,collectorate has replied the answer of such questions which are based on the questions in which this is said that information sought is not information as principal replied.This proves,they are totally fixed.

 As collectorate said in response of Awamanana Notice that action taken against me by the principal is right and this is accepted by my father.So i sent RTI to collectorate and principal what action against me was taken and what my father accepted,how action was right without my favour and medical test etc.Same reply came from both that information sought is not information.But this is surprising that collectorate has said in reply of question that on what basis action was taken and send a written prove that principal has already provided this information and principal has provided this information in the sense that i was cautioned,house of child was changed,my father was called etc,etc.Now the question is that if there was talking only about cautioning,housechanging,calling parents etc then why not questions were replied what action principal took against me,what my father accepted etc.This proves the conspiracy and conspiracy is that firstly,DM office replied such because principal had said DM that he expelled me as this is said in response that principal has sent detailed report in this regard to the Bihar Human Rights Commission.But principal has sent report that he didn’t expell me and my father himself took TC. Principal had to accept before DM  that he expelled me to protect himself because he stated falsely in the report sent to the BHRC that complaint is lodged to DM.So anyhow,anyway principal wanted to protect himself and this resulted for principal to say that he expelled me as he had manufactured fake documents addressed to DM.Principal had  managed to lower officers than DM of collectorate and said to reply same as principal replied.This proves i was expelled because why not information is provided what action taken by principal against me,what my father accepted if the collectorate itself said that action taken against me is right and this is accepted by my father.No information provided proves that if i was expelled,if no medical test happened then this was wrong.

The order is issued on dated:-29.9.2011 but TC was issued on 28.9.2011.The order was issued on 29.9.2011 so that principal can say that i was no more in school and the problem of that child had already resolved so no action was requested..

 Here,this should be noted that principal has not submitted report to collectorate according to my noted points or has not supplied me report which is said to sent by principal to collectorate according to my noted points.Principal has sent me the report through RTI which is same to the report sent to the BHRC.This proves that if complaint is lodged after 6 months having no action taken then this is wrong.Similarly,Same awamanana Notice was sent to that mother twice but she didn’t reply.This proves that if complaints are done to SDM and DM after 6 months having no action taken then this is wrong..

Here,this point may be noted also that i sent Awamanana Notice to DM as complaint was lodged to DM by Pintu Kumari.So only on the basis of her complaint and process followed on that complaint,reply should be given.But report was taken from principal in regard to Awamanana Notice.This is written in the response of this notice that report is taken from principal in regard to Awamanana Notice.This means,DM was unknown before  from the complaint.This means,no complaint was lodged to DM.That’s why report is taken from principal to know the matter.Unless,response should be given only  on the basis of the  complaint done to DM because complaint had been filed already,order had been issued and principal had already submitted report in regard to her complaint.

How the officer on special duty came to know that documents have been supplied already by the principal?Why this officer sent my RTI application to the principal and after receiving response,sent me reply? If this officer sent RTI application to the principal,this means,no documents were available to the collectorate.So consulted as principal had already fixed and managed and replied same as principal said.If those informations would be available to the collectorate then informations would be supplied without contacting.As the principal had prepared fake documents so no information were available to the collectorate.

If complaint was  lodged to DM,order was  issued by the DM office in regard to the complaint of Pintu Kumari,Sanjeev’s mother,principal submitted report in regard to complaint of her[Pintu Kumari] and secondly in regard of my Awamanana Notice sent to DM then why there was need to contact always because collectorate had acquired all informations..This proves,no complaint was done to DM,no order was issued and no report was submitted so every times have to be contacted to manage.

Even i sent 5-paged report of principal sent to BHRC alongwith my this notice.Even after that,report is taken from principal.How?In this report to BHRC which i sent to DM,no action is narrated against me but this is said that action is taken against me and this is said on the basis of the report of principal sent to DM.Here,DM or his office  observed the two different reports – which is sent by principal to BHRC and the report which is sent by principal to DM.So DM or officers of DM office were able to understand the conspiracy of principal but compressed this conspiracy anyhow by replying anyway in response of contempt notice.What real report principal submitted to DM in response of my contempt notice,must be traced.

When i sent DM contempt notice then DM or his lower officers would be able to understand that no complaint was lodged to DM.So this could be replied that no complaint was lodged.But this would disclose the conspiracy of principal.So the officers wanted to protect the principal anyhow and thus this is replied that action taken against me is right and this is accepted by my father which is replied by principal in his response of this contempt notice.

In the same way,the mother of Sanjeev could say that no complaint was done.But this would disclose the conspiracy of principal.If she would reply any other thing,she would trap herself.So she didn’t reply anything.

A copy of report sent by principal in response of awamanana notice sent to DM is appended under reference.

Annexure-30/5

2.How prejudicially NVS officers protected that principal is disclosed by RTI.

 A.K. Tiwari,AC of NVS patna was appointed investigation officer by Headquarter after the order of National Human Rights Commission to the secretary,Union HRD. The enquiry done by A.K. Tiwari is totally prejudicially affected and the officers of headquarter accepted this report to protect principal.

 In this report which i received through RTI,this is said i was doing wrong with that child.I was not mentally fit .Such things are said on the basis of the application of the mother of that child and the application of that child but there is nothing in the application of that child and 3 applications of the mother of that child contradicts her own fact itself.Secondly,this can’t be said by an investigation officer.This can be only said by medical board.So A.K. Tiwari misutilized his right and said to protect principal under managing. Thirdly,how everything was said without listening my favour.

 NVS,Headquarter said by accepting such condition falsely said by AK Tiwari that i was not expelled and due to that condition TC was taken by my father as Tiwari explained.Again, when i sent RTI application of 13 questions regarding my case,now this is said that enquiry report is very clear so no further action is proposed.How everything is said without my favour and related medical tests.This should be noted that this is said by headquarter even in the condition,when HRD sent 2 letters to NVS Commissioner with  a request to look into the matter again as NVS had only considered the favour of principal and his side.HRD sent again the order of my case No.753/4/30/2012/OC under NHRC as this case No.[which was my report in regard to my complaint]was also forwaded to the HRD by the NHRC as per my request.But HRD didn’t take action at his level and showed carelessness or protected principal.I submitted report to the HRD in regard to the report of principal on 28 April 2012 and in subsequent times but this was not forwaded to NVS.Same 13 questions under RTI were sent to the HRD and firstly,this is said that I have sent RTI to department of school education and literacy instead of higher education and copy is sent to NVS,Headquarter .I sent RTI again to higher education and now school education has forwaded application to NVS.If RTI should be sent to higher education then why school education again replied.Now NVS,Headquarter has sent same reply that as the enquiry report is very clear so no further action is proposed by the competent authority after the forwading letter of HRD.

In his report,there is no discussion of complaint done to the  District Magistrate,Samastipur and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai .This means,no such complaints were lodged.

 It seems very shocking to say how a widowed lady and her small sons are being utilized by principal by forcing to assist in his conspiracy and creating pressure by the officers and persons also who protect/help principal like AK Tiwari,some district level officers etc,etc.

3. In one his RTI response of dated:-8.9.2012 ,principal has supplied these 2 articles[Regarding Vision 2047                      –                 Annexure -30/6

Sanjeev is a child of wonderful reflection              -Annexure 30/7] also as these were sent to the email ID of that child and these were submitted to principal.In this way also,principal has received such articles.

Both of the articles supplied by principal by the medium of the  mother of Sanjeev are appended.

Regarding Vision 2047                      –                 Annexure -30/6

Sanjeev is a child of wonderful reflection              -Annexure 30/7

 I have sent principal,some teachers  named Awadhesh Kumar and Praveen Kumar[who assisted principal on 14 Sept 2011,objection against them has been explained in my complaint done to the NHRC against all others-Annexure-] some lines via emails/sms/facebook like go and commit suicide,you are rapist,gunda,you will be hanged to death,go and do  wrong  with your son.These are sent after Sept 2011 and since last 2 months,I have sent nothing to any.These were sent because I was facing excess trouble due to them and this resulted in sending such lines due to depression.I only said them but they did such with me.But I have also sent them news related to case,what report I submitted,what I have evidences,what they did wrong etc,etc.So I helped them also.I have sent such news,reports,evidences etc to the email ID of that child also.

 4.Who is accused in real?

 Principal is accused in real.Some boys used to torture myself and that child and when I complained against them,in revenge to this,they complained against me to his associate housemaster.The associate house master complained to principal and informed his mother.These boys only complained about sleeping and this is written in the complaint of that child also.After this,they complained to that mother and she complained to principal.In this processes,this is evident that some boys only complained about sleeping and there was nothing role of that child.The complaint of that child says same facts too.So this can be concluded that I was being trapped due to personal problems,prejudices etc.It was principal,who could solve this problem but he always accepted the favour of my opponents because he was facing problems as I was working against corruption and started to torture me.In this context,what he did,i have informed already.

 So by the doing of principal  this can be said that principal bounded me to ran away and I had to ran away,even after this principal trapped me .How much he had been brutal?I was tortured a lot.A small child was tortured due to living with me.That child was too helpful for my project.In spite of this,I was trapped  but the BHRC is considered nothing.I can’t tolerate that objection more at any cost.I was tolerating due to human rights commission and human rights commission has broken all expectations.

 Common sense to be applied

 1.If I would be wrong then I would not lodge case against principal.

 2.If I would be not expelled,I would not lodge case against principal.

 3.If I would be known about these complaints which are done against me then I would explain about this in my complaint against principal of dated:-19.12.2011 and centralize my case according to these complaints.In my email reports to HRD of dated:-22.3.2012 and to NHRC and BHRC of dated:-21.3.2012,I would explain about these complaints as I was not known so I didn’t explain.In my report to NHRC and BHRC of dated:-24.2.2012,I would explain about these complaints if I would be known.i came to know on 19 April 2012,when I received the 5-paged reports of principal from the BHRC.

A copy of email report sent to BHRC of dated:-21.3.2012 are appended under reference.

-Annexure-30/8

 These all incident prove that I was totally unaware about these complaints.That’s why these are prepared by principal later in back date.

 4.That boy said nothing like homosexuality and no one claimed like homosexuality.Then how the matter is bombarded and flashed.This proves conspiracy and I was trapped forcely.

 5.Complaint is done to SDM and DM but no action is taken against me.This proves,I was trapped forcely and there was no evidence against me so no action is taken.Moreover,this proves that the complaints are fake ,prepared later in back date where I was no present so no action is taken.I stated this before the BHRC on 31 Oct 2012.

 6.There is not only complaining of that child,but there is complaining of his mother,PK Acharya,My housemaster,BP Singh[only oral] etc but no action is taken against me. This proves,I was trapped forcely and there was no evidence against me so no action is taken.Moreover,this proves that the complaints are fake ,prepared later in back date where I was no present so no action is taken.

 7.Why mostly complaints are done in in Sept 2012-before very few days of issuance of TC?Why one is done on the date of absconding and one is done 2 days before of absconding?If this is said that I ran way on 24.8.2011 due to the complaint of that mother of dated:-22.8.2011 then I have already proved that this complaint is baseless as her son complained on 22 .9.2011 but she complained on 22.8.2011 on the basis of the statement of her son.In this complaint,no sign of principal and that child is present.Moreover,nothing like unnatural offence is narrated.So this can be said that I was trapped forcely and the policy of principal bounded me to ran away.If this is said that physical appearance is not needed so there was no need to ran away.Then I would like to say you that I had already sent email to NVS,Patna on 17 and 18 Aug 2011 [nvspatna@rediffmail.com] titled:-Emergency:-Regarding irregularities of JNV Samastipur focusing my personal problems.But no action was taken and after this email also principal kept torturing and I ran away.This system bounded a person like me to ran away.

After receiving this email complaint which was also filed to NVS,Headquarter[Headquarter has accepted this by RTI],principal trapped me.

A copy of email complaint is appended  under reference.

Annexure -30/9

 Followings points may be included also:-

8.On 23.3.2012,I complained against remainings to the NHRC like Awadhesh Kumar,Pankaj Kumar,BP Singh,Praveen Kumar and Nisha Kumari to take action and Amreesh Kumar, Aditya Manher and that mother to warn them.No hearing happened and i also filed application to withdraw this complaint.The case is disposed in the NHRC now.But in this complaint,i have not expained about the complaints of that mother done to DM and SDM.If this would be in real then i would explain as i complained against her.

If there would be complaining of GS Chaudhary and PK Acharya as explained in the report o principal and submitted also then i would complain against GS Chaudhary and PK Acharya also.This proves that i am not known about these complaints.So these are done later in back date.

A copy of email complaint done to NHRC against all others except principal is appended under reference.

-Annexure-30/10

9.After trapping by principal,perhaps on 18 Sept 2011,i talked to CBI SP office,Patna.From 9471090180 or 8809810789 to his office landline.I informed a staff who received phone that after complaining against principal,principal has expelled me.He suggested to lodge FIR in police station.SMS used to come by stating to inform CBI SP office, Patna in case of bribery.This used to come on 9471090180 and so i talked.

10.Surely,there will be many telephone conversations between principal and some district level officers after lodging case in the Human Rights Commission.How they manage?For this,they will talk through telephone.Principal firstly managed fake complaint against me,then tried to manage the given reply of Awamanana Notice by managing my RTI application sent to the collectorate.So call details record must be traced.

11.I have said about personal problems.I had complained against some boys who complained first and this was their problems and due to that they were torturing.I had complained against the associate house master of Arawali B so he trapped me first.The mother of that child wanted the house changing of her child so she trapped me as her one son was living in Udaygiri B and another was in Arawali B.The defective policy of principal and school management bounded her to trap me.These all matters have been settled till the time of absconding but after complaining against principal by absconding,he trapped me.So only principal is the accused in my view.This is common for all that all had wrong thinking related to homosexuality without any evidence due to prejudices.The mother of Sanjeev was misleaded too as she was being informed wrongly by some students under the co-operation of some teachers due to personal interest of theirs and prejudices.Also,she would be facing problem related to prestige.She would be thinking what people think about her and her son as her son was living with me and some people of society was not accpeting friendship  due to prejudice.She was a blood presseure patient getting perplexity and anxiety .Informing  by other students regarding excess living and few days sleeping,wrong thinking of some teachers in this matter  would perplexed and anger her .I was informed that she went to lodge case against her father in law when he refused to give her participation in his pension, she started to burn her body by kerosin oil when the ralling of her house became some non-straight,she used to beat her sons very much.Such problems of this mother was also working in my case.So such reasons also bounded the mother of Sanjeev to complain.

Later on,principal utilized the mother of Sanjeev after approaching me to the commission to create prsessure for the Sanjeev to not speak against principal.Because principal trapped the mother of Sanjeev too so this is not possible for Sanjeev to speak against principal as his mother is shown being involved. She is utilized by the principal because she is a widowed lady,her two small sons are residing in the school.

The story has been totally changed.This is being shown that Sanjeev was forcely living with me,he was forcely sleeping.I have proved that he was willingly living and we have slept willingly due to some reasons only for very few days.But everything is being shown forcely to show that he was forced,so i did wrong.So if he was living willingly,i didn’t do anything wrong.This can be concluded by the temperament of all compalints against me.

12.Please see Kasab for a while in the context of brutal action taken against me.

Firstly Kasab should be acquited.Secondly,again petition should be filed by one another in the same court where he was acquitted and punished for 5 years.Thirdly,petition should be filed again by the same one in the same court and punished for 10 years.Forthly,no petition should be filed by any but the judge of same court must award lifetime imprisonment.Lastly,no petition should be filed by any again but Kasab should be awarded capital punishment[fansi] by the same judge of same court.

Is this happened in real?No,because punishment is given once by a court according to law,not 5 times for a particular matter by a  particular judge.

But this happened in my case.

Firstly,this was said to minimize the time of living with the child and not sleep when some boys and a teacher complained on 8.3.2011 to principal .Secondly, the mother of child reached to principal on 31.3.2011 and principal isolated the child .Thirdly,again the mother of child reached to principal on 6.7.2011 and principal changed the house of the child .Forthly,no one reached to the principal to complain against me but principal himself said on 23.8.2011 that if i would talk with the child,i would be expelled.Lastly,no one reached to the principal to complain against me but principal himself trapped me and expelled on 14.9.2011.I was leave within these days after the first decision of principal.So nothing happened during these days of giving decision from second time to last time.

Decison can be given once and only can be re-considered[curative petition] once.But there are 5 times decision here.

What this indicates?This indicates,there was only conspiracy against me for the personal interest of all who were anyhow involved against me.There is no legality in such sorts of decision.

Then how the Human Rights Commission verdicted blindly?

13.This is said in the RTI Response of princiapl of dated:-10.9.2012 that my father accepted my fault before Pintu Kumari-the mother of Sanjeev,PK Acharya,BP Singh,GS Chaudhary and Praveen Kumar,PGT History/Associate house master of Arawali A.On 6 July 2011,Praveen Kumar was not in school and not the associate housemaster of Arawali A.On 23.8.2011,when i went to school after a long interval of time,Pintu Kumari didn’t come to school.This can be proved by the report of pricnipal where he is saying that Pintu Kumari came on 22.8.2011 and complained against SMS/emails.Obviousely,she can’t come next day and this is written that i accepted that i sent SMS/emails to Sanjeev next day on 23.8.2011.This is not said that her mother was also present.So she was absent.According to the report of principal,After 23.8.2011,i ran away from school on 24.8.2011 and never went to school again.So if my father accepts after 24.8.2011,this can be termed accepting under pressure.So how my father accepted before these person?This proves,principal has kept many false witnesses and this statement of principal is false.

14.On 14.9.2011,when principal was trapping me,Sanjeev stated that as bhaijee [his seniors] used to say that i came at night but he was sleeping so he remained unknown and he used to see me at morning.In the written statement of Sanjeev,whatever he has stated is just some exaggeration in his statements given on the day of trapping.This proves,he has exaggerated that statement due to pressure and i was trapped so similar exaggeration is present in his statements.

15.As an excuse,this will be said surely that by mistaking such faults like absence of date,absence  of sign,absence of case No,signing 1-2 days before etc happened.But there can be mistaking in one complaint/report.Everywhere,in every complaint and report,there are many mistakings.This can be possible only in the perlplexed,nervous  and short-time condition where such complaints/reports  would have to be prepare immediately to ready all  documents against me to Submit to the Human Rights Commission or send me through RTI which i demanded to centralize me and protect principal.So  these are manufactured later in back date.

16.Lastly,according to law,if i would be wrong then FIR would be lodged against me till March 2011-as the matter is of till  March 2011 or in April 2011 surely.If i would be wrong then the child would complain about unnatural offence or  any other would present himself as an eye-witness till March 2011  or in April 2011 surely [because i had been leave on 3 April 2011  and again came on 23 August 2011,so there would be no pressure to that child and any now] and action would be taken immediately against me and i would be expelled immediately .But the child complained on 22 Sept 2011 -after a long gap and after complaining against principal and in that case also,didn’t complain about unantural offence.This proves,the child was forced to complain.So unwillingly he said something like he was forcely living under pressure as he had to say anything which can create point for the principal and suspect me.In my case, 5-times decision are given against me  by the principal and  this can be only possible in the case of conspiracy.This proves,the child said nothing against me and no one presented himself as  an eye-witness.There is no discussion of justification and my favour  in the report of principal.This proves,the objection was not justified and i was not given the opportunity to keep my favour because i was being trapped forcely,the child said nothing against me,no one presented himself as eye-witness.If the child would say or any one would present as eye-witness,there would be justification of the objection at school level and i would be given the opportunity to keep my favour and this would be narrated in the report of principal sent to the BHRC.The result would be narrated in the report of principal like what was proved against me.In that case,there would be no need  for me to lodge case against principal as the result would be very clear in view of the statement of the child or any eye-witness and my favour against this statement.I was not wrong,so there is no result shown in the report of principal.If the child didn’t say anything and no one presented as eye-witness,then how the mother of the child complained.So all complaints of the mother of the child is baseless.

17.He was my single friend.He bacame my friend that time when no one remained  my friend.He was helpful for my project[philosophy].I was being tortured due to personal interests of some people and wrong thinking of homosexuality.Sanjeev was tortured too due to these reasons.Due to torturing,we had to face a lot of psychological problems.In these all above condition where we were tortured,he was alone friend and helping me in my project,how wrong emotion can be generated.If wrong emotion can’t be generated.No wrong work can be done.

Annexure 23

I have already described about the self-accepting of principal in my main report.

All recordings of principal are as under:-

1.Recording of dated:-4.9.2011,from 9471090180 to 9431691667 where he is saying that he is going to expell me as i complained against him.He is accepting that application for TC has been given already.

2.Recording of principal of dated:- 5.5.2012-from 9234283676 to 9431691667 where he is abusing when i asked when complaint is lodged to Dalsingsarai Court[SDM]

3.Recordings of principal of dated:- 6.5.2012-from 8809810789 to 9431691667 where he is cutting phone[from 9234283676] and in last recording[8809810789] he  is replying to ask in office when complaint is lodged to Dalsingsarai Court[SDM].This means,i am not known.That’s why complaints are manufactured later.

4.Recordings of principal of dated:- 9.5.2012-from 8252033792 to 9431691667 where in first recording he is saying that he is out of office and in second recording that he is saying that  he will inform only in office when complaint is lodged to Dalsingsarai Court[SDM].This means,i am not known.That’s why complaints are manufactured later.

5.Recording of principal of dated:- 6.8.2012-from 7549654957 to 9431691667 where he is saying to come to office to know  which higher authority he is talking about where complaints are lodged.He was talking about DM and SDM,this is cleared by his RTI response.He is saying to know by saying to come to office.This means,i am not known.That’s why complaints are manufactured later.

6 Recordings of principal of dated:- 10.8.2012-from 9955206198 to 9431691667:-He cut the phone in first recording and in second recording he is saying in response of my this question that this is replied by DM office that action taken against me is right and this is accepted by my father to  ask to whom who has written such.This means,principal is accepting that if i was expelled then this was wrong.In the RTI response of principal and DM office,this is replied in response of my question what action against me taken and what my father accepted that information sought is not information.This means,principal and DM office are  accepting that if action is taken against me then this was wrong.

7.Recording of principal of dated:- 14.10.2012-from [86***forgetting] to 9431691667 where he is not informing me  whether migration certificate came or not.This proves his personal problems.

There is recording of some students also:-

1.Sujeet Kumar:-He has accepted that principal expelled me after complaining against him.I talked on 26 June 2012 from 9234283676 to 8002514323

2.Rahul Kumar:-He has accepted that principal expelled me after complaining against him.He is stating principal wrong and replying yes when i am saying that principal may be suspended.I talked on 28 June 2012 from 9234283676 to 7677171431

3.Ashutosh Kumar:- He is accepting that principal trapped me after complaining against him.He is not known what the  District Magistrate did in my case.He is stating yes when i said that principal has prepared fake documents by the medium of that mother in the name of DM.This  proves,the documents are manufactured after approaching me to the BHRC.He is saying me to return back to school for development.This proves,i was working against corruption.He  talked on 22 May 2012   from 7870257758[perhaps] to 880981078

4.Aditya Kumar[my roommate]:- He is stating that principal did everything and he is surprising how principal is saying such.When i am saying that principal will undergo action,he himself is replying yes.I talked on 30 April 2012 from 9234283676 to 9939808072.In one another recording of dated:-8 Aug 2012 from 9939808072 to 9955206198,he is saying that he is not known about complaining done to DM.He is accepting that this is manufactured after approaching me to the BHRC to show such situation externally.He is asking what will happen to princpal if i am proved right.This proves,principal did wrong.

5.Kanhaiya Kumar:-I talked to him on 30 June 2012[from 9135582790 to 9955297937]He is accepting that complaint to DM is done after approaching to the commission[later] to show that i did wrong.He is accepting that principal can  give pressure to that child and his mother.He is stating that principal gave me TC as my guardian were not tight.This proves,principal can force my father to write application.In recording of dated 1 Nov 2012[from  7856092271 to 7352860286],he is accepting that principal has prepared fake documents against me.He has stated so many  wrong activities of principal which i have explained in my main report.In recording of dated 10 Nov 2012,he is going on in the same way[from 9955206198 to 7352860286] He has replied in believing sense when i said that principal forced my father to write application.He is accepting that principal expelled me.So he is accepting that principal can force my father to write application for TC.

6.Sahmat Ali:-I talked to Sahmat Ali on 24 Nov 2011 from 9955206198 to 7856932001.He is accepting that principal has manufactured fake documents against me.He is stating the decision of human rights commission wrong.He is saying that principal can manage.He is supporting my words to issue contempt notice to the commission.He is accepting that the commission was prejudicied as the matter relates between 2 boys,against teacher,principal and officers.This proves,i am right and principal is wrong.He has replied in believing sense when i said that principal forced my father to write application.He is accepting that principal expelled me.So he is accepting that principal can force my father to write application for TC.He is speaking that Shrawan,Amit etc was discussing that principal went to Patna in my matter.This proves,others were speaking in my favour.That’s why Sahmat is speaking in my favour on phone after listening words of others.

Recordings of former Students

1.Aryan Singh:- He has asked me action against principal.This proves,he has been informed by someone else that principal did wrong. He is saying that principal has money and politics and i have nothing.So principal will win case.I talked to Aryan on  21 Oct 2012 from 9955206198 to 08804274167

2.Madhav Kumar Singh:- He has replied yes when i have said that i was working against the corrupt policy of principal.He has said that principal is too worse.He was with me till class 10.He left school after class 10.So he observed me with Sanjeev.In spite of this,he is stating principal worse.This proves,he knew i am right.I talked to Madhav on 16.11.2012 from 9955206198 to 08302825905.Again on 25.11.2012,i talked to Madhav from 9955206198 to 08302825905 and he has said that he will collect witness of students in my favour.He has said me to use all students as witness who have stated/liked through facebook.He has stated the decision of commission wrong.He has accepted that principal can force Sanjeev as he is a small boy and his mother as she is a widowed lady.He has accepted that the other students can’t give witness under pressure of principal. He has said that i am not wrong and he will witness in high court but he is in Kota so he will give witness through video conferencing.Therefore,i request you to allow video conferencing for Madhav and such all who can give witness from video conferencing but not able to come to court.

3.Santosh Kumar:-He was with me in school till class 10 in my class.I talked to Santosh on 5 and 8 Dec(3 recodings ) from 9955206198 to 8252909333.He in in favour with me.He has informed that against his desire,principal has sent him to JNV Muzaffarpur by slaping him commerce against his desire of opting scinece.He has informed that there was no eyewitness in his case related to friendship with Jyoti Kumari,in spite of this,such thing was done with him.He has informed that the mother of Jyoti was forced to sign on application of TC but she was expelled and Jyoti and  her mother was forced to sign on wrong objection imposed on Jyoti.Principal sent Santosh to JNV Muzaffarpur and in this way,seat was vacanted and principal became able to fulfil the seat by another as lateral entry of class 11 by taking money.Santosh has informed that Pragati Kumari was sent to JNV Muzaffarpur by giving commerce in place of her desire of opting science.But she was eligible for science.He has informed that principal didn’t give a boy namely Saurab Kumar science and he became bounded to take TC but he was eligible to opt science.Principal didn’t keep a boy namely Chandan Jha in school by forcely taking application of TC from him.These all are done by principal to vacant the seat for lateral entry of class 11 so that principal could fulfil these seats by taking money.Now principal will say in case of Santosh,Pragati,Saurab and Chandan that they were not forced,they theirself have given the concerned application for opting commerce or taking TC as he said in my case.

4.Jyoti Kumari:-She was with me in school till class 10 in my class.I talked to Jyoti on 8 Dec  from 9135195932 to 8252909337.She has said that she wants to give witness in my favour but her father is refusing.She has said that i am right.She has further submitted that she was expelled from school but principal has forced to write application and her mother was forced to sign on the application.She has said that she was forced to accept objections slaped on her and her mother was forced  to sign.She kept mobile and she had friendship with Santosh so she was expelled.She is a tribe and principal showed his wrong mentality due to being a tribe.Also,principal wanted to vacant a seat of ST girl to fulfil this seat by an another girl as lateral entry  by taking money so principal did such.She was too forced that she is forgetting what principal forced her to accept.She is saying that she is forgetting many things but Santosh has informed that she was  forced to accept sexual relationship between Jyoti and Santosh.But there is no evidence.Principal understood Jyoti a girl of misconduct and expelled her.But to hide the conspiracy,he forced to write application of TC like my case.

Overall,as Jyoti is saying that nothing such was accepted by her related to physical relationship with Santosh then how she was expelled only on the basis of mobile keeping and friendship with Santosh.In this case also,this is evident that she was expelled due to prejudices,due to being a tribe and principal’s temptation of filling a seat of ST in place of her by taking money from an another.

Now principal will say that he didn’t expell Jyoti  as he has forced to write application like my case.

Now this is evident by the statement of Jyoti  and Santosh that my father was forced to write application as her mother was forced and Santosh and others were forced  as above.This is evident that principal has forced  Sanjeev(his brother in his place),the mother of Sanjeev to complain against me as principal has forced Jyoti and her mother to write and sign on wrong objection respectively.

Annexure 22

More than 80 students have supported me through facebook.

[Everything is being said on the basis of the time till 28 Sept 2011]

1. Aditya Manher:- He,the roommate of Sanjeev, is the boy who trapped me first.He was the chief of all,who used to torture.When i kept questioning to him,he replied,he will not comment further to the matter.This means,he has no answer regarding my question against principal.This proves,principal did wrong.He could speak against me but never spoke.When i asked him whether principal expelled me or not,he replied perhaps not.This means,principal expelled and in his view,he did wrong as he could say yes if principal did right.As i am going to discuss before high  court and he has granted my success.He can grant only when i would be right.

2.Aditya Kumar[class 11,my roommate]-Aditya is a person who motivated Manher to complain against me. He has wished me all the best and asked what i will do now when i informed that the BHRC has closed case.This proves,he believes me right.He has liked my status where i have stated principal Ravana.

3.Skand Kumar[Skand Bhardwaj] He is classmate of Manher who helped Manher to complain.He has said that he is in favour with me.He further said me to not take tension when i asked him whether he will speak in my favour face to face.This proves,he is under forcing of principal.He has taken his personal interest to know when there will be medical test etc.He was commented that truth can be disturbed,can’t be defeated.He has liked my status against principal.

4.Gautam Kumar:- He is the roommate of Sanjeev who has said that i will win case surely.He has liked and commented on my photo against the  principal.He has expressed his sad feeling when he knew that my case has been closed.By observing my evidences,he has said that principal will be demolished where i have proved documents against me fake.This proves,principal has manufactured fake documents against me.He has liked my status where i have said that principal should be hanged and he is internal terrorist.He has said that he wanted to help me by giving witness in High court but there is some helplessness for him.He has said that there is fear of principal so he will not give witness.This proves,there is fear of principal for everyone including Sanjeev,the mother of Sanjeev as Gautam is fearful.

5.Vikash Kumar[Vikash Singh]:-He is roommate and classmate of Sanjeev who said that he will help me,he will say Sanjeev to speak against principal.He has liked my photo and status against principal and commented.

But he left himself to do any activity like messaging,commenting,liking when i informed him that if he will like and comment on my wall post then principal and  teachers will torture you.I said him whatever he wants to say,he may say through message but even he refused to send message.This proves,principal and teachers can torture.Now in DP Vacation-after 3 months he only started chatting .

6.Hariom Singh :-He is housemate of Sanjeev,who has said that i will win this case.He has encouraged by saying that striver never defeats.He has liked my post against principal where i have said that the crime of principal is rarest of the rare.

7.Anuj Kumar:- He is housemate of Sanjeev,who has said that i will win this case.

8.Raushan Kumar(lower room):-He is housemate of Sanjeev,who has said that principal was wrong.Even he has said that principal has managed to the Human Rights Commission.In the voice clips of Kanhaiya,he has said that principal expelled some boys by objecting over-aged due to not giving bribe to him.Now Raushan has clarified that 8 boys of his class(classmate of Sanjeev) were expelled and DM ordered them to live again in school.

9.Sujeet Kumar [Sujeet JNV Samastipur]:- He is housemate of Sanjeev,who has asked still i have anxiety.This proves,he is known everything.

10.Amit Raushan:- He is the boy of closest room of Sanjeev,who has said that principal trapped  me as i was working against corruption.He has said that i am doing wonderful.This country needs you  like people.This proves,he believes i am right.

11.Dilip Kumar[Kumar Dilip]:-He is the boy of closest room of Sanjeev,who has said that principal was wrong.He has further submitted that principal would manage to the commission.He has said that i have appealed so decision will be in my favour now.This proves,he believes i am right.

12.Sameer Kumar[Sameer Vicky]:-He is housemate of Sanjeev,who has said that he is ready to help me.Now when i asked him how he will help, he is saying that he doesn’t know more about my matter but whatever he knows,from his side i am 96 % right.Firstly,he himself is saying that he is ready to help.Now he is saying that he doesn’t know more.This proves,he is fearful from the principal to say something on my behalf.But he has said that i am 96 % right even having fear.This proves,i am right.

13.Abhishek Kashyap:- He is my housemate ,who stated good news when i informed him that principal is saying he didn’t expell me.He wished me all the best.He advised me to be careful because principal is clever and he may change medical report.He asked me if i will win then what will happen to the principal.Now he is saying that principal would close your case.He has done chatting with me in this regard,many times.These all prove,he believes me right and principal wrong.He has said me i am doing well and keep it up when i informed him about my effort against the proving the complaint done to the District Magistrate,Samastipur fake.This proves,the related complaint is fake.He has stated the progress of case very good when i informed that the Sanjeev has said noting about sexual relationship but the mother of Sanjeev has been forced to complain to DM and SDM and principal forced my father to write application for TC on 28.9.2011 .In spite of this,he stated the progress of case very good and commented nothing against me like my father was not forced,the mother of Sanjeev was not forced to complain to DM and SDM.This proves,that my father was forced and principal has manufactured documents by forcing that mother. He has said that by posting on wall teachers come to know.This proves,he is accepting that teachers especially principal can know that i have posted on the wall of the concerned boy and the boy would be considered as my supporter and would be resulted in the torturing of the boy.

14.Ashutosh Kumar:-He is my housemate ,who stated  that we will meet again in the school and he hopes that i will win case surely.This proves,i am right.He has liked my status against principal.

15.Alok Kumar:-He is my housemate ,who liked my status against principal.

16.Sanjay Kumar:-He is my housemate ,who has said that i will win case so don’t take tension because truth wins always.This proves,i am right.

17.Sanjeet Kuamar:-He is my housemate ,who has said that i will win case surely.This proves,i am right.

18.Saurab Kumar:- He is my housemate ,who has said that i will get success if i will keep it up.He states the order of central information commission good news for me.This proves,i am right.

19.Shashikant Prakash:-He is my housemate ,who has termed this saying of principal good news that he didn’t expelled me.After knowing the order of CIC,he said that he is happy to know such news.This proves,i am right.

20.Rahul Kumar[Rahul Ranjan]:-He is my housemate ,who has stated that i did good to lodge case.This proves,i am right.

21.Mithilesh Kumar:-He is my housemate ,who said that pricnipal trapped me because i was working against corruption.He has liked my status and photo against principal.This proves,i am right.

22.Subham Kumar:- He is a student of my closest house ,who  has said that truth wins always.Ultimately,i will be triumphanant.This proves,i am right.

23.Suman Kumar[Sushant Suman] :- He is a student of my closest house ,who  has said that i will win surely.This proves,i am right.

24.Saket Kuamar:-He is a student of my closest house who said that pricnipal trapped me because i was working against corruption.He said me Satyamev Jayate on my birthday.

25.Nishant Kumar:-He is a student of my closest house who said that principal did wrong with me.This is about to justice.

26.Ujjwal Shrama:-He is a student of my closest house who said to not loose moral in response of my status that if i will not get freedom from that objection then i will leave the human beings and commit suicide if i will not get a chance to live beyond human beings by further submitting that if i will do such then who will go against the principal.This proves,principal is wrong.

27.Shrawan Kumar:-He is a student of my closest house who has said that principal was wrong.He has asked what i will do now when i informed that the BHRC has closed the case.

28.Kanhaiya Kumar:- He is a student of north campus where Sanjeev is living now.He has said that i am going in the right way but be careful.This proves,i am right.

29.Hrithik Raj:-He is a student of north campus where Sanjeev is living now.He has said that my problems would be increased as the commission closed my case.Before this,he has apologized before me as he said that he has no interest in my case.

30.Prakash Mehta:-He is a student of north campus where Sajeev is living now.He has said that i will win case surely.Also,he has said some encouraging words.

31.Rakesh Kumar[Rakesh Vijay]:-He has wished me all the best.He has aked me when principal will be killed[in the sense of justice] .This proves,principal is wrong.By observing my evidences,he has said that principal will be demolished/killed where i have proved documents against me fake.This proves,principal has manufactured fake documents against me.He has said that i will win the case against the principal.He has said to be alert from principal because he is not good.He has liked my status where i have said that princiapl will be punished too if my report will be read honestly.He has liked my status where i have said that principal has verdicted 5 times in my case and this is illegal.He has said that he is praying for my victory and i am right.This proves,principal is wrong

32..Rituraj Kumar:- He is my housemate who has asked when there will be final decision of my case in the known sense.He has liked my some status.This means,he knows reality.

33.Rajeev Ranjan:- He has stated my post true where i have said that principal is going to show now due to my case.He has liked too.This proves,i am right.

34.Raja Kumar [Mihir Shanvir]:- He has said that he is alongwith me.This proves,i am right.He has liked me status.

35.Manish Kumar:-He has said that he is known of these all happenings.He is known,principal trapped me after complaining against principal.

३६.He has opposed so his name has been removed.

37.Brajeet Kumar[Brajeet Raj] :-He has said that he is alongwith me.He further submitted that principal must be punished.

38.Kumar Aditya:-He has liked my status where i have stated principal Ravana…

39.Azra Zawaid:-She has liked my status where i have stated that the son of principal went to IIT by the power of money and such things help a person like principal to torure a person like me who speaks against corruption.

40.Nitish Chandra:- He has said that i will win case surely.This proves,i am Right.

41.Amarjeet Kumar:- He has liked my staus where i have said how i will prove myself innocent.

42.Vikash Kumar Maurya[Anuj Smith]:-He has liked my status against principal where i have appealed to navodayans to come to high court to give witness.He has said that he is always with me.My character is like Kejriwal who is suppressed by corruption.This proves i was working against corruption and principal suppressed me due to this.

43.Ankesh Kumar:- He has  said that he is always with me.This proves,i am right.

44.Sushant Pankaj:-He has liked the status where this is shown that Madhav Kumar Singh is going to High Court to witness.When i asked him what he thinks,he replied that he thinks that  if i am right and if wrong is done with me then i am doing right.He is in if.He has not said against me.This proves,no one is eye-witness and the said boy said nothing such so he is in confusion.

45.Rupesh Kumar Monu:-He has liked my status where i have said how the Bihar Human Rights Commission didn’t follow the guidelines of National Human Rights Commission.

Former Students

46.Santosh Kumar:- He has said that he will go to give witness in high court.He is my classmate who was in school alongwith me till class 10 so he can witness what i did wrong or not.He has said that he has liked my status and i am in the true way.He has said me to keep go ahead and he is supporting. He was being expelled due to friendship with a girl named Jyoti Kumari but Jyoti Kumari was expelled.After a mass effort,principal sent Santosh to JNV,Muzaffarpur by alloting  him commerce against his desire.Everything was done against him and Jyoti due to prejudice related to friendship between a girl and a boy.Jyoti was exploitated due to being a tribe also. Santosh  will give witness in my favour also  and stated my way true so i am right.

47.Jyoti Kumari:- Santosh has informed me that Jyoti and her mother will give witness and both are with me.The mother of Jyoti has said that principal has forced to sign in the many  wrong objections imposed on Jyoti due to being a tribe.She has said that principal must be punished to weep the parents.She will say more after meeting.This is said that due to being a tribe,principal forced to sign on wrong objections.This proves,principal descriminates on ground  of caste,creet,religion as this happened in my case also and principal can force my father to write application,Sanjeev,his mother and others to complain against me as principal forced to Sign on wrong objections and this is said by the mother of Jyoti and Jyoti and Santosh is accepting this.

In her regard,following points may be noted:-

She was  a minor girl of class 10.The boy was also of 10.There is no evidence against the both to prove like sexual relationship.So whatever is done with the boy and girl is totally wrong.There was only evidence like the both used to talk through mobile even at delay night.But this was not competent enough to take such action.If this is assumed that there was physical contact between the two.Then who is responsible?The boy or the girl.According to the law,no any provision like section or article is present which can state a girl wrong in such case.Even she was a minor girl.This proves,there was only prejudices related to friendly relationship between a boy and a girl and the girl was expelled due to being a tribe too.Unless,there are many such friendly relationship between a boy and a girl and even boy is not expelled.

The incidents of Santosh and Jyoti case prove that i was also  trapped with Sanjeev only on the basis of such feelings existing in the mentality of principal and others because principal like person is habitual to impose his such wrong feelings to a person like me,Sanjeev,Santosh and Jyoti.This proves,i was trapped  due to prejudices  as the boy was living friendly not living forcely as Santosh and Jyoti were living friendly and trapped without any reason.

48.Raman Bharti:- He was my classmate,alongwith in the school till class 10.He has asked whether i will Join school again.This proves,he was informed by someone that i was expelled from the school.He has said to keep continue this when i informed him about the decision of CIC against NVS,Headquarter.This proves,i am right.

49.Priyatam Samrat:- He has wished me all the best and advised me to not give up when he read that case has been closed.He has liked my status.

50.Rahul Jha:- He has wished me all the best.

51.Ujjwal Labh:- He has wished to fight case.He has  said may god give me power to fight against malacious action taken against me.This means,he is believing principal may take such action forcely.

52.Aman Kumar:- He has said that pricniapal may wrong but there are many way to solve problem by mitual understanding. This means,he is believing principal may take such action forcely.

53.Amit Singh:- He has said that by law and order,i am right.He has liked my post against principal.This means,he is believing principal may take such action forcely.

54.Ranjit Kumar:- He has said that he is shocked to know such news.This means,he is believing principal may take such action forcely.

55.Jabbir Hussain:- He has said that he was resticated for 3 times because he was muslim.Now he is saying that he will not give witness because his small brother is staying in JNV Samastipur and he has a good term with principal.This proves,principal can torture his brother if he gives witness.Similarly,this proves,no one wants to give witness face to face due to fear from principal.This is implemented in the case of Sanjeev,the mother of Sanjeev and his brother also.They are fearful from principal.They think that if they give witness,principal will torture.The mother of Sanjeev is a widowed lady and her 2 sons are staying there.So this is not possible for any to go against principal.  Now he is saying that there was no such matter that he was rusticated due to religion.But principal changes his tounge always.This proves,he is fearful but the matter is something wrong done by principal  because he is saying that principal changes his tounge always. Now he is refusing due to some fear as his younger brother is still staying in that school but he has enlisted himself in may be option of coming to give witness in high court.This means,he may come to give witness.This proves,he was rusticated 3 times due to being a muslim in real.

56.Indrajeet Kumar:- He has said me to not ignore the anti-social principal.

57.Vikash Kumar[Prakash Kumar]:-He has said that principal expelled him because he missed one exam of class 8.

58.Amit Samrat:- He has said that he has been victimized by the wrong decision of principal.He has said me to opt offensive policy as principal is political in nature.

59.Prasoon Kumar:- He has liked my some photo and status against principal.

60.Chandan Jha :-He has liked my photo against principal.He has messaged what good i presented principal where i have presented principal as a rapist.

61.Lalbabu Singh:- He has liked my some  status against principal.

62.His  brother has opposed so his name has been removed.

63.Rajesh Amarnath:-He has said me that a person like principal is political,no dignity of his post.He must shame.He has said that he is shocked to see rubbish talking.He has said  that everyone is scared of principal.So no one will help.This proves that if everyone is scared of principal,then principal can force a teacher,a mother and a boy to complain against me.He has wished me all the best and said that he would help me if he would be in the position to help..He has liked my some status.He has said me to keep continuity to learn lesson to the principal.He has said that he is always with me.He has said that principal is cheating you by trapping you falsely.He has wished me best of luck.He has said that he would come to High court to give witness,if he would be in Bihar and he would have not to face exam.But still he has permitted me to use his activity on my behalf on facebok like messaging,commenting and liking.He has said that by helping me,he has done nothing for me.If he would be in Bihar,he would do a lot for me.This proves,he is believing that principal can take such action forcely.

64.Madhav Kumar Singh:- He has said that i have done good to case to high court.This proves,he is known i am right. He has expected the good future of my result and he has said that i have omnipotent to do this.He has assured me help.He has wished me best of luck and asked about case.He has said that principal is venomous who expells a good student by going through wrong way.By observing the all facts,he has said that there is conspiracy against me. He has said that he is ever with me and truth.He has said that he will pray god for me to collect witness on my behalf and say others for this.He has contacted with others to give witness like Anant Kumar.He has said that i have established an example of truth in school.This proves,i was working against corruption.He has  said that my fight is now the fight of all navodayans who hate wrong rumour.He has said that everyone will help me and truth.He has liked my many status.This proves,i am right and prinicipal is wrong.

65.Sachin Singh:- He has shared  and liked my photo against principal and commented on my status and photo against principal.He has liked my status where i have demanded CBI enquiry.

66.Aryan Singh:- He has liked my photo and commented on my status against principal.He has done chatting with me to know what action will be taken against principal.This means,he is informed by someone that principal did wrong with me.

67.Sunny Bhaskar:- By knowing the matter,he has said that the fucking principal should be hanged to death.

68.Amit Ranjan:-He has liked my status where i have appealed students  of the school to give witness by coming to court or video conferencing.This proves,principal can do such wrong work.

69.Vikash Thakur:-He has said that he will come to High Court to give witness.He further submitted that i will win case so don’t worry.He has said that he was small so principal was torturing him personally by threatening him to resticate after strike of 2 Jan 2008.He has submitted that principal is not good.This proves,principal can do such wrong work.

70.Manish Chaudhary:- He has liked my status where i have appealed the students of the school to come to High court to give witness.

71.Gaurav Kumar:- He has liked my status where i have said to give witness against the principal of JNV Samastipur.

72.Deep Raj:- He has said that i will surely win if i will  take the help of oppossition party if ruling party is not helping.He has said that he is not surprised to see such matter because he knows the corrupt system of the country.He has said that he will talk to others to help me.This proves,principal can trap me forcely.He has liked my status where i have demanded CBI enquiry.

73.Amarjeet Kumar:- He has liked my status where i have said that there are 9 different fabricated stories against me.

74.Manikant Mani:-He has liked my status against principal where i have appealed to navodayans to come to high court to give  witness and proved the decision of Human Rights Commission wrong..He has liked my status where i have listed the name of people who have helped or assured to help.

75.Aman Prakash:- He has liked my photo against principal.

76.Sudhanshu Kumar:-He has liked my photo against principal.

77.Ravi Shankar:-He has liked my status where i have informed about my problems.He has said to meet with Arvind Kejriwal.This proves,he is beliving that principal can do wrong with me.

78.Anant Kumar:- He has liked my status where i have criticized the present law system due to that a person like principal gets benefit.

79.Aditya Sagar:-He has liked my photo against principal.

80.Sudhanshu Kumar(Sudhanshu Chhotu):- He has said that principal has a lot of accessibility but this will not work everywhere.This proves,principal can effet the justice by the power of accessibility.

81.Nitesh Singh:-He has liked my photo against principal.

Who have assured during talking

1.Anant Kumar:- He has assured Madhav Kumar Singh that he will help me at his level best.He has said that he is ready to talk with me to help.This proves,i am right.