1 2025:CGHC:44994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7039 of 2025 Hemant Thapa @ Hayat Thapa S/o Late Udak Bahadur Thapa, Aged About 37 Years Sale Tax Colony, Gayatri Nagar, Pitrachhaya Block No. D 04, Room No. B-2, Raipur, Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narayanpur District Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.09.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 60/2025, registered at Police Station : Naranyanpur, District- Naranyanpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 319(2), 3(5) fo BNS, (corresponding Sections 384, 419, 34 of the IPC) and Section 66 (D) of I.T. Act. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the prosecution story complainant-Rameshwar Kumar Porte submitted a written complaint before the police station and stated that he and Saniya Mishra new each other through face book from 7 months. The complainant and Saniya Mishra were sexually chatting through their mobile numbers respectively 94255xxxxx, and 78796xxxxx. On 06.05.2025 a phone voice calling came from the mobile number 78796xxxxx to on his whatsapp and he said that whatever you talked about that day related to sex, it has been recorded by him i.e. co-accused. If he does not give him 1 lakh rupees so he will make his sexual talk viral on the social media. The complainant due to fear transferred Rs. 10,000/- on mobile number 89621xxxxx, and told he has to manage remaining amount, he come Narayanpur there will give remaining balance amount. On the same day that person and two ladies came at the Narayanpur, there some time conversation happened between them. That man told his name Sheikh Hasim/co-accused and after that Sheikh Hasim, Hayat Thapa and another lady extorted Rs. 90,000/- from the complainant in the name of viral the sex related conversation on social media. On 14.06.2025 one person called the complainant and asked, he knows Saniya Mishra? she was died due to him and one case is registered against him in the Police Station Civil Line. If he will give 2-3 lakh rupees? then the person will get his case resolved, otherwise take action against him. On 17.06.2025 as per earlier decided, Sheikh Hasim reached Madhulika Hotel Narayanpur, and said the complainant, if he give two lakh rupees then his case will 3 be closed. After that the complainant said to him, he is bringing money please he stay here, after that he reported matter before the Police Station Narayanpur. The FIR was registered the accused was arrested on 26.07.2025. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court under Sections 308(2), 319(2) 3(5) BNS, 66 (D) I. T. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that complainant Rameshwar Kumar Porte met Saniya Mishra on Facebook and they had sexual chats. On 06.05.2025, co- accused Sheikh Hasim blackmailed the complainant with recorded chats, demanding ₹1 lakh. Then, the complainant paid ₹10,000/- via mobile transfer and ₹90,000/- in person at Narayanpur, where Sheikh Hasim, Hayat Thapa, and another woman extorted money. On 14.06.2025, another call claimed Saniya Mishra had died and demanded ₹2–3 lakh to avoid a case. On 17.06.2025, co-accused again demanded ₹2 lakh at Madhulika Hotel, complainant informed police. Thereafter an FIR lodged and accused arrested on 26.07.2025 and charge sheet filed under Sections 308(2), 319(2), 3(5) BNS & 66(D) IT Act. He further stated that the co-accused Sheikh Hasim, who is the main accused, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6759/2025, vide order dated 28.08.2025 further no money has been received from the possession of applicant nor the same has been recovered from him but as per seizure memo only one mobile of oppo company without sim was seized from the applicant at police Station Naranyanpur, 4 and further it is stated that the applicant is having 70% cataract in both eyes and unable to see and his treatment is continuously going on (The copy of medical document has annexed in Annexure A/2) and the applicant is in jail since 26.07.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the offence committed by the applicant/accused is of a serious nature, wherein he, in collusion with other co-accused persons, conspired and extorted money unlawfully from the complainant. At present, there has been a significant rise in such organized crimes in society. These offences involve deceitfully trapping individuals and dishonestly extorting money from them. If liberal consideration is shown in granting bail in such cases, it will only embolden such offenders. It is further noted that another co-accused, Ruhana Parveen, is still absconding. In these circumstances, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, granting the benefit of bail does not appear to be justified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the co-accused namely Sheikh Hasim, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6759/2025, vide order 5 dated 28.08.2025 further no money has been recovered from the possession of the applicant except one mobile phone without sim and further considering the fact that the applicant is having 70% cataract in both eyes and he unable to see and his treatment is continuously going on (The copy of medical document has annexed in Annexure A/2) and the applicant is in jail since 26.07.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let applicant, Hemant Thapa @ Hayat Thapa, involved in Crime No. 60/2025, registered at Police Station : Naranyanpur, District- Naranyanpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 319(2), 3(5) fo BNS, (corresponding Sections 384, 419, 34 of the IPC) and Section 66 (D) of I.T. Act, 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 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. 6 (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 Kunal