Munil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40037 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2026 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Munil Kumar S/o Shankar Dhobi R/o Village - Medh, PS - Chainpur, Post - Sirsi, District - Kaimur (Bhabua) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ragini Sharma D/o Pappu Sharma R/o Village - Medh, P.O - Sirsi, PS - Chainpur, District - Kaimur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 19.04.2026, in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 180 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 19.04.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 64, 64(2)(m), 351(2), 308(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 8, 10 of the POCSO Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed rape upon the victim.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40037 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 2/2 implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that he has committed rape upon the victim and also prepared the video and apart from that the date of birth of the victim is 19.08.2007 which suggests that at the time of occurrence the victim was minor and apart from that on the basis of video footage, the petitioner has again repeated rape upon the victim in the Hotel in question.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 180 of 2026 pending in the Court of learned District & Additioinal Sessions JudgeVIII cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kaimur (Bhabhua).

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T