1 2025:CGHC:35817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1011 of 2025 Deniyal Tandi /o Rabin Tandi Aged About 46 Years R/o Housing Board Colony Boriyakal, District Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Gudiyari Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 288/2025 registered at Police Station – Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(d), 294, 506, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 6, 10 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in short, on 02.06.2025, the victim lodged a First Information Report against the applicant and other co-accused persons, stating that they had committed sexual intercourse with her on 2 13.02.2024, blackmailed her by making a video, and threatened to kill her while abusing her. Thereafter, the police registered Crime No. 288/2025 for offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(d), 294, and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the POCSO Act against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, no criminal offence is made out. He submits that the victim is related as a sister to one Nitin Dahariya, against whom the wife of the applicant had lodged a report in Crime No. 25/2024 at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, and vide judgment dated 29.05.2025, the said accused was acquitted. A copy of the judgment is filed herewith as Annexure A/4. He also submits that since, Dhanesh is the counsel of the co-accused person and applicant is a colleague of Dhanesh, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that initially, the police registered the FIR under Sections 294, 506, 376(2)(घ), and 376(1) of the I.P.C. A copy of the FIR is filed herewith as Annexure A/5. It is further submitted that the said Mohd. Sultan Ahmed had threatened the co-accused’s wife, Anjali, regarding the withdrawal of the FIR registered at Police Station Khamtarai bearing Crime No. 906/2024, stating that otherwise he would implicate her husband in a false case, and consequently, the instant case has been registered against the applicant, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non- applicant/State, opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that applicant along with other co-accused person, have 3 committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 11.07.2025, the victim/objector on 17.07.2025 appeared through video conferencing from DLSA Raipur and raised strong objection for the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that in compliance of this Court’s order dated 17.07.2025, the learned counsel for the applicant filed an additional affidavit with regard to the present case, which is annexed with the present anticipatory bail application, from perusal of the affidavit as well as the case diary it transpires, that initially the wife of the applicant, had lodged an FIR against the brother of the victim for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 506 Part II, 375(2)(n), and 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act, in which the brother of the victim was acquitted vide judgment dated 29.05.2025. Three days thereafter, the complainant lodged an FIR against applicant and the co- accused, namely, Anil Verma. Hence, due to previous enmity, the complainant has lodged a false report against the applicant along with the other co-accused, namely Anil Verma, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Deniyal Tandi, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- 4 (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/ sd/-d/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Alfiza