Mundrika Kumar Ray @ Mundrika Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76427 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2024 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Mundrika Kumar Ray @ Mundrika Ray S/o- Lakhindra Ray, Vill- Sarariya, P.S.- Lalganj, Dist.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mostt. Reeta Devi W/o- Late Kapildeo Ray, R/v- Khajauli, P.S.- Lalganj Dist.- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 175 of 2024, dated 22.06.2024, registered for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, 11 year old daughter of the informant went missing on 21.06.2024, when she was going to school and the informant-mother had apprehension that she has been kidnapped with intent to grab her land. In course of investigation, the victim has been recovered from Pune, Maharashtra and her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC has been recorded, in which she has alleged that the petitioner has committed rape upon her and tortured her.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76427 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has come in course of investigation. He further submits that the petitioner is no way involved in the alleged offence and the whole allegation is false and baseless.

5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent.

7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.

8. Considering the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC and the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.) ravishankar/- U T