Dismissed¶23

Vikki Soni v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC30 Oct 2025CR. MISC./9781/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vikki Soni bail rejected; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9781 of 2025, order dt. 30-10-2025 by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra; Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, District Rohtas; Sections 366(A)/376/34 IPC and Sections 4/6 POCSO Act; enticement/kidnapping of informant's minor daughter; charge-sheet filed; custody since 26.09.2024; no criminal antecedent; defence claim of voluntary elopement and temple marriage at Bhabua; trial to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the materials available in the case diary, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. ¶22

Vikki Soni Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9781 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2024 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Vikki Soni S/o Satyendra Soni @ Munna Soni R/o Mohalla- Noorganj, P.S. and P.O.- Sasaram (Town), District-Rohtas

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Dilip Kr S/O- Late Motichand Sahu r/o mohalla- Noorganj, po-sasaram psSasaram, rohtas

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kumari Anupam, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 30-10-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. In spite of valid service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per prosecution case, the petitioner has enticed and kidnapped the informant’s minor daughter.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9781 of 2025(4) dt.30-10-2025 2/3

¶18

petitioner and the victim girl were in love and the victim girl was repeatedly pressurizing the petitioner for fleeing away from home but, the petitioner was denying for the same. From perusal of the statement of the victim girl, it appears that the victim girl had gone voluntarily with the petitioner without any pressure or threats. It also appears that the victim girl has voluntarily gone with the accused and solemnized marriage in a temple at Bhabua without any coercion on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 26.09.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

¶19

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the offence alleged is serious in nature. The informant and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and there is a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 366(A)/376/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. It is further submitted that the consent of the minor girl has no meaning in the eye of law and, hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9781 of 2025(4) dt.30-10-2025 3/3

¶22

taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner as also the materials available in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶23

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.

¶24

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶25

rishi/-

¶26

U T

Vikki Soni v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikki Soni v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Mandal @ Mannu Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Jailal Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Manikant Kumar @ Manikant Sonar Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar @ Guchhu @ Manoj Das Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar