Dismissed¶19

Vikky Mistry @ Vicky Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Apr 2026CR. MISC./17554/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CRL.MISC. No.17554 of 2026, order dated 01-04-2026, Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh. Anticipatory bail application of Vikky Mistry @ Vicky Kumar in Kadirganj P.S. Case No. 162 of 2024 (Nawada) refused on grounds of nature and seriousness of accusation. Offences: Sections 76, 318(4), 351(3), 352 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; Sections 66, 67(A) Information Technology Act. Allegation: intimate video recorded on false promise of marriage and made viral via contact through Facebook. Defence: innocence, love affair, false case after refusal to marry, clean antecedent. Advocates: Rishav Dev for petitioner; Renuka Ratnakar (A.P.P.) for the State.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused. ¶19

Vikky Mistry @ Vicky Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17554 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2024 Thana- Kadirganj P.S. District- Nawada

¶3

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

¶4

Vikky Mistry @ Vicky Kumar S/o Badho Mistri R/o Village- Kaitha, PODhamaul, PS- Chandradeep, District- Jamui Bihar

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rishav Dev, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renuka Ratnakar (App 125) ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 01-04-2026

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶12

Petitioner apprehends arrest in Kadirganj P. S. Case No. 162 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 76, 318(4), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66, 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.

¶13

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant came in contact with petitioner through Facebook. Thereafter, on false promise of marriage, this petitioner persuaded informant to undress and acting on such promise, informant undressed herself which was recorded by the petitioner, who subsequently made the video viral.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. In fact, petitioner and informant were having love affair and when

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17554 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026 2/2

¶16

petitioner refused to solemnize marriage with her, this false and concocted case was lodged against him. Petitioner claims clean

¶17

antecedent.

¶18