1 2025:CGHC:58693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9406 of 2025 • Umesh @ Nanki Diwakar S/o Santuram Diwakar Aged About 19 Years R/o Khaparitand, P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bennon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 01/12/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.264/2025, registered at PS -Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir Champa, C.G, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 61(2), 62, 140(2), 142 of the BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant (father of victim child) lodged missing report to the concerned Police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered initially under Section 137(2) of BNS against known persons. During course of investigation, it is found that present applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have abducted the victim child. On the basis of memorandum statement of Rahul Tandon, victim child was recovered from the possession of co-accused persons. His statement was recorded and based upon which, other offence were added in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Prosecution story is based upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence/material available to connect the applicant in the alleged crime. There is no any other criminal antecedent against the applicant, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, looking to the detention period of applicant, ie, since 27.08.2025, he may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application of the applicant and submits that applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have abducted the victim child and demanded Ransom of Rs.10 lakhs from his parents. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, he may not be entitled for grant of bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that applicant 3 alongwith other co-accused persons have abducted the victim child and demanded Ransom of Rs.10 lakhs from his parents, victim child was recovered from the possession of co-accused persons, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-