1 2025:CGHC:58587 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9811 of 2025 Sandeep Soni S/o Vishwanath Soni Aged About 48 Years R/o Bhawani Nagar, Kota, Police Station- Sarswati Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Gudhiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 43/2025 registered at Police Station - Gudhiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 75(1), 75(2), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of I.T. Act. (As per charge- sheet). 2. Earlier first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4941/2025. 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant/victim lodged a written PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.04 11:32:28 +0530 2 report at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), stating that the applicant had married her aunt, due to which both families were acquainted and frequently visited each other. During mutation proceedings relating to the complainant/prosecutrix’s father before the Revenue Officer, she often accompanied the applicant, and they began visiting various places together. In the meantime, a romantic relationship allegedly developed between them, and they exchanged mobile numbers and remained in regular contact. It is alleged that during a video call, the applicant captured certain obscene photographs/videos of the complainant/prosecutrix on his mobile phone. It is further alleged that the complainant/prosecutrix’s aunt (co-accused) became aware of this relationship and obtained the said photographs/videos from the applicant's mobile phone through WhatsApp. Thereafter, the co-accused allegedly circulated the obscene material via WhatsApp to the mobile phones of the complainant/prosecutrix’s parents and uncle, due to which the incident came to light. According to the complainant/victim, due to the acts of the applicant and the co-accused, she has suffered severe mental distress and humiliation. Consequently, she lodged the present report against the accused persons at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.). 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is the second bail application of the applicant. He further submitted that the prosecution has falsely implicated the present applicant in the aforesaid crime as the statements of the complainant/victim in the written report, under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., as well as the memorandum statement of the applicant, are contradictory to each other. This shows that the police and 3 the complainant/victim have implicated the applicant merely on the basis of suspicion, without any actual commission of an offence by him. The true facts, as revealed in the supplementary statement of the complainant/victim, indicate that she was involved in an affair with the applicant and had threatened him that she would commit suicide if he refused to continue the relationship. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the complainant/victim destroyed her mobile phone and SIM card after certain facts came to light before the police and others. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Smt. Ganga Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7854/2025, the applicant is in jail since 02.03.2025 and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that this is the second bail application of the applicant, who has been in jail since 02.03.2025, and the co-accused, namely, Smt. Ganga Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7854/2025, and considering that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 4 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Sandeep Soni, involved in Crime No. 43/2025 registered at Police Station - Gudhiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 75(1), 75(2), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of I.T. Act. (As per charge- sheet), 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 him under Section 269 of BNS. (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 BNS. 5 (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 are 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. 9. 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 Preeti