Patna High Court
CR. MISC./31444/2026 of Chunmun Kumar @ Chunmun Sah Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31444 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2023 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Chunmun Kumar @ Chunmun Sah S/o- Narayan Sah Resident of Village- Batrauliya Ps-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31444 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2023 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ======================================================
Chunmun Kumar @ Chunmun Sah S/o- Narayan Sah Resident of Village- Batrauliya Ps- Muffasil District- East Champaran Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
Ajay Kumar S/o- Late Sitaram Bhagwat R/v- Naya Tola Jhitkahiya W.No-6, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the State
:
Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
17-08-2026 The present case is one under the POCSO Act. Notices have been issued to the opposite party no. 2 but he refused to accept the notice.
2. Heard learned APP for the State through virtual mode and learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A/34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with others are said to have kidnapped the victim and thereafter took her to Delhi, where she was raped by one co-accused Raushan.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been named in the First Information Report, which is specific Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31444 of 2026(4) dt.17-08-2026
against co-accused persons and two unknown persons and the name of the petitioner surfaced during the course of investigation in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that even going by the statement of the victim, the main allegation appears to be against co-accused Raushan and so far as the petitioner is concerned, his name has just been taken as one of the persons, who was present at Delhi, where she was confined. It has further been submitted that barring the said statement of the victim, no other tangible material appears against the petitioner during course of investigation. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned APP for the State, however, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that name of the petitioner has transpired in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., where his name has been taken along with the main co-accused Raushan and one Amalesh and the materials further disclosed that the girl was a minor and bail application of similarly situated co-accused Amalesh Kumar, has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27135 of 2026.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that bail application of similarly Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31444 of 2026(4) dt.17-08-2026
situated co-accused person has already been rejected by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
priyanka/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T