Patna High Court
Vikky Mistry @ Vicky KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Vikky Mistry applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS No.162 of 2024) alleging that he lured a woman via Facebook with a false promise of marriage, recorded her undressing, and circulated the video, thereby violating sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. The prosecution contended that the act constituted offences of sexual exploitation, wrongful confinement, and cyber offences. The petitioner argued that the allegations were fabricated, that he and the informant were in a consensual relationship, and that he had a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges. The High Court, after hearing both sides, refused the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail, concluding that the nature of the accusations warranted custody.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes offences under sections 76, 318(4), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and sections 66, 67(A) of the IT Act
- Whether there is a risk of the petitioner fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 318(4), 351(3), 352, 76
- Information Technology Act — s. 66, 67(A)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- sexual exploitation
- video pornography
- cyber offence
- false promise of marriage
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Information Technology Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17554 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2024 Thana- Kadirganj P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
Vikky Mistry @ Vicky Kumar S/o Badho Mistri R/o Village- Kaitha, PO-
Dhamaul, PS- Chandradeep, District- Jamui Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rishav Dev, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renuka Ratnakar (App 125)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17554 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/2
petitioner refused to solemnize marriage with her, this false and
concocted case was lodged against him. Petitioner claims clean
antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed
the bail application.
6. Considering the nature and seriousness of
accusation, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is
refused.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…