Munchun Kumar @ Munchun Singh @ Munchun @ Munchun Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52042 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2023 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Munchun Kumar @ Munchun Singh @ Munchun @ Munchun Kumar Singh Son of Late Suresh Singh Resident of Village- Chintamanipur, P.S.- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

XXX Son of - YYY Resident of Village- Chintamanipur, P.S.- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 181 of 2023, registered under Sections 366(a), 376(d), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.

3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5447 of 2025 taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as also there being direct allegation of rape against the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52042 of 2026(2) dt.24-07-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him. There is no any medical report of the victim girl which makes the prosecution case doubtful. The petitioner has got one criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the present one is the second anticipatory bail application and the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the present one is second anticipatory bail application, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T