Patna High Court
Mritunjay Kumar @ Mrityunjay Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that the victim’s statement naming the petitioner, together with the seriousness of the offences, warranted denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Mritunjay Kumar, sought bail in a kidnapping case involving the minor daughter of an informant, filed under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution’s case diary and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS specifically named the petitioner as a participant in the abduction. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, that the only evidence against him was a confessional statement in the diary, and that his implication was driven by political rivalry. The informant and the State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s recorded statement and the seriousness of the offences. The court, after hearing counsel, concluded that the existing material justified denial of bail and rejected the petitioner's bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the victim’s statement naming him
- Whether the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail
- Whether a confessional statement in the case diary alone can establish the petitioner’s involvement
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO
- BNSS
- confessional statement
- political rivalry
Judgment
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.S-
Runnisaidpur, 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
3 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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.