1 2025:CGHC:13059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 375 of 2025 Monish Janbodhkar S/o Shri Rahul Janbodhkar Aged About 25 Years R/o Shivanand Nagar, Sector-01, Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate. For Non-Applicant /State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 19/03/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.84/2023, registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District – Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution in brief is that on 03/02/2022 at around 08:57:35 hrs. some obscene videos and pictures relating to females and children were uploaded in the Instagram by an IP address 122:168:158:158. It is alleged that the broadband internet from landline No.077110196401 belonging to the applicant was used for that purpose. Based on the prima facie evidence in the tip, the concerned police lodged an FIR against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence for oblique purposes. He further submits that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant is a meritorious student. It is only for his educational purposes that he got the landline installed in his house and it seems that some unscrupulous busybodies who happen to be students of the vicinity to whom the applicant had shared the password of Wi-Fi of his landline broadband for his educational purposes have misused the same and the applicant has been roped without there being any fault on his part. He further submits that it is not the case of the prosecution that the Instagram Id alleged to have been used to upload the alleged obscene materials on internet belongs to the applicant. The only allegation is that the broadband which has been used for that purpose belongs to the applicant. Under such circumstances the possibility of misuse of Wi-Fi password by some other persons cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant used to upload the female and child pornography contents on the social media platform i.e. Instagram and though the FIR was lodged in the year 2023, but the applicant was absconding, due to which, the charge-sheet sheet could not been filed against him. The allegations levelled against him are serious in nature, hence the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation levelled against the present applicant that the applicant used to upload the female and child pornography contents on the social media platform i.e. Instagram and though the FIR was lodged in the year 2023, but the applicant was absconding, due to which, the charge-sheet sheet could not been filed against him and also considering the fact that the applicant has been absconding for last 02 years and has now come up before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, reported in {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where 4 the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Monish Janbodhkar, filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. involved in Crime No.84/2023, registered at Police Station –Khamtarai, District – Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal