VICKY KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 257/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 329(4),64,308(3),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRVA010020012026

Filing Number

1795/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

257/2026

Registration Date

18-Feb-2026

Court

Vaishali DJ Div.

Judge

4-District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

370

Police Station

LALGANJ

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 329(4),64,308(3),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VICKY KUMAR

    Adv. MUKESH KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: BP 257/2026 - Vicky Kumar v. State of Bihar Vicky Kumar's bail petition was rejected. The court found that Kumar is named in FIR 370/2025 for allegedly establishing physical relations with a minor on false marriage promises, recording video of the act with associates, demanding ₹2 lakh, and making threatening calls. The judge deemed the allegations heinous and declined to enlarge the accused on regular bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 257/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: BP 257/2026 - Vicky Kumar v. State of Bihar Vicky Kumar's bail petition was rejected. The court found that Kumar is named in FIR 370/2025 for allegedly establishing physical relations with a minor on false marriage promises, recording video of the act with associates, demanding ₹2 lakh, and making threatening calls. The judge deemed the allegations heinous and declined to enlarge the accused on regular bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case