Mritunjay Kumar @ Mrityunjay Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80370 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-433 Year-2024 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Mritunjay Kumar @ Mrityunjay Kumar Yadav S/ O Raja Ram Ray R/O Village - Tikauli, P.S- Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Ram Jeevan Rai S/O Late Asharfi Rai R/O Village - Tikauli, P.SRunnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State :

Mr.Anil Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Ms. Shalini, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shubendu Shekhar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 433 of 2024 lodged on 04.12.2024, for the offences punishable under section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8, 12 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the F.I.R. has been lodged against five named accused persons, other than the present petitioner, alleging kidnapping of the minor daughter of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80370 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the present case for the first time on the basis of a confessional statement recorded in paragraph 78 of the case diary, and except for the said statement, there is no material available against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean and that his implication in the present case is due to political rivalry.

5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim has been recovered, and after her recovery, her statement was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. In her statement before the Court, the victim has specifically disclosed the name of the present petitioner and has alleged his involvement in her abduction/kidnapping.

6. Learned APP for the State also vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the case diary has been received, and the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS is appended thereto. In paragraph 4 of the said statement, the victim has specifically named the present petitioner as being involved in the alleged occurrence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80370 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026 3/3

7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 433 of 2024, pending before the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitamarhi is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T