1 2025:CGHC:50959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8116 of 2025 Akash Tiwari S/o Upendra Tiwari Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Khokhra, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 334/2025, registered at Police Station Purani Basti, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 308(2) of the BNS. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.14 11:20:35 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant, Renuka Netam, lodged a written complaint stating that the present applicant, Akash Tiwari, falsely representing himself as a journalist and claiming to have connections with the CSP, had demanded and taken an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) in cash from her, in purported exchange for facilitating the release of her son from police custody. The complainant further stated that a video recording of the said transaction is available. Based on the said complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the applicant under Section 308(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 2023, and an investigation was duly initiated. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested by the police of Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 308(2) IPC and 3(5) of the B.N.S. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant, being acquainted with one Rinku Pandey, was under his influence and was led to believe that he could assist in securing the release of the complainant’s son from police custody. As per the memorandum statement of the applicant, he went to the office of his acquaintance, accused Anurag Sharma, and counted the money given by the complainant, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-. When questioned by Anurag Sharma about the source of the money, he explained the 3 circumstances, after which he was instructed to hand over a portion of the money for facilitating the matter. Accordingly, he handed over Rs. 1,10,000/- to Anurag Sharma and retained Rs. 90,000/-. Subsequently, when he met Rinku Pandey and informed him of the transaction, Rinku Pandey asked for Rs. 10,000/- which the applicant paid. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has already granted bail to co-accused Anurag Sharma in Bail Application No. 2461/2025 vide order dated 21.08.2025 and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co- accused. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent registered against him, in which he has already been granted anticipatory bail and the same has been explained in para 4(A) of the bail application. He lastly submit that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2025, though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute that the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted by the learned trial Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and 4 the fact that co-accused Anurag Sharma in Bail Application No. 2461/2025 vide order dated 21.08.2025 and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, applicant has only 01 previous criminal antecedent in which, he has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, charge-sheet has already been filed and he is languishing in jail since 13.08.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 6. Let applicant, Akash Tiwari, involved in Crime No. 334/2025, registered at Police Station Purani Basti, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 308(2) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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. 7. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet