1 2025:CGHC:35566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5764 of 2025 Chintu @ Aslam S/o Abdul Rasid Aged About 25 Years R/o Vrinda Nagar, Behind Govt. School, Camp-1, P.S. Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Nadini Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. D.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station Nadini Nagar, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant lodged a complaint at the concerned police station alleging, inter alia, that the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 co-accused Damini Soni and the present applicant were well acquainted with the complainant. There was communication between both parties, and in the years 2013–2014, Damini Soni got married at Kanker, after which the complainant stopped communicating with her. Subsequently, in the year 2021, both of them entered into a live-in relationship, during which certain incidents were video recorded. On 30.08.2022, at about 11:00 a.m., Damini Soni allegedly called the complainant to meet her, used abusive language, and threatened him. She is also alleged to have pressurized him to meet her and, along with her brother-in-law (Jeeja) Chintu @ Mohd. Aslam who is present applicant, demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant by threatening to make the said video viral. Based on this complaint, the police arrested the present applicant on the basis of the memorandum of statement and registered the case against him for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits the alleged incident is stated to have occurred between 30.08.2022 and 07.09.2024, whereas the FIR has been lodged only on 27.06.2025, causing an inordinate and unexplained delay in registration of the case. He further submits that the applicant has no involvement in the alleged crime. It is pertinent to submit that prior to the lodging of the present FIR, the complainant had also registered another FIR at Police Station Nandini Nagar, 3 District Durg, for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita against the same applicant and another accused, in which the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Furthermore, no incriminating articles have been seized from the applicant and no allegation of loot or recovery is made out against him; he has been arrested merely on the basis of a memorandum statement. It is also relevant to mention that co-accused person, namely Damini Soni has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1036/2025, and on the ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 29.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submit that the charge- sheet has not been filed in the present case and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. She further submits that the present applicant demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant by threatening to make the said video viral, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case 4 that as per the prosecution case, the entire allegation arises out of a personal dispute between the complainant and co-accused Damini Soni, who were previously in a live-in relationship, and that the alleged threats and demand of money are stated to have occurred during that strained relationship; further considering that the alleged incident pertains to the period between 30.08.2022 and 07.09.2024 but the FIR was lodged only on 27.06.2025, indicating an unexplained and inordinate delay; further considering that no incriminating article has been seized from the present applicant and the arrest is solely on the basis of a memorandum statement; further considering that co-accused, namely Damini Soni, against whom similar allegations have been made, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1036/2025 and he is in jail since 29.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Chintu @ Aslam, involved in Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station Nadini Nagar, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in 5 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan