1 2025:CGHC:60438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1953 of 2025 Balkrishna Jandge S/o Late Brijlal Jangde Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Temri, P.S. Nandghat District- Bemetra (C.G.) Presently R/o Lig- 1/13, Pirda Housing Board Colony, P.S. Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Tilda Nevra District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar as well as Mr. Gyan Prakash Dandekar, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.12.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.358/2025 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Tilda Nevra District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 232(1), 190 of BNS. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Shantanu Kumar Deshlahre submitted a written complaint on 07.08.2025 stating that he was called by Tilda Nevara Police to appear in Raipur Court for giving his statement. When he reached Raipur, he received a call from his sister informing him that 8–10 persons had arrived at their house in a vehicle, asking about his whereabouts and saying they needed to take him for giving a statement. She further informed him that those persons said they would catch him before he reached the court and that he should have been finished earlier, due to which he fled from the court premises out of fear. The complainant also stated that he had been receiving phone calls from unknown persons identifying themselves as “Lucky Maharaj” and “Gappu,” pressuring him to give a statement in favour of accused Anjana Jangde in Case No. 109/2021 (Sections 376, 120-B, 450, 506, 307 IPC). They threatened him and asked him to meet a lawyer connected to the accused to ensure he supports them in court. Based on the complaint, Crime No. 358/2025 under Sections 232(1) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was registered at Police Station Tilda Nevara. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. His name does not appear in the written complaint dated 07.08.2025, nor is he named in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC of either 3 the complainant or his sister. He was not present at the time of the alleged incident. Despite this, an absconding panchnama was issued on 10.10.2025, even though the applicant regularly appeared before the same court from 07.08.2025 to 16.10.2025, demonstrating that the case against him is fabricated. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed against several co- accused, while the applicant has been unnecessarily shown as absconding. His implication is solely based on suspicion and on the memorandum statements of co-accused. The complainant himself gave no objection to the bail of co-accused Deepak Kumar Verma and Ravikant Verma, and even admitted that he took their names by mistake, which casts doubt on the credibility of the allegations. Moreover, several co-accused, including Anjana Jangde and others, have already been granted bail/anticipatory bail, placing the applicant’s case on an equal or better footing. He also submits that the WhatsApp summons allegedly sent to the complainant on 07.08.2025 does not align with court records, as the complainant had already given his testimony in Sessions Trial No. 235/2021 on the same date. The prosecutrix and main witnesses in the earlier trial have already been examined, leaving no possibility of influencing evidence. The earlier FIR in Crime No. 109/2021 was lodged against an unknown person, and even in that case, no prima- facie offence of rape was made out against the applicant. He Later submits that one co-accused, namely, Anjana Jangde has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 4 05.12.2025 in MCRCA No.1923 of 2025, hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons, threatened eyewitness Pramod Verma and attempted to influence him to give a favourable statement in support of accused Anjana Jangde in the earlier criminal case (Crime No. 109/2021). It is alleged that the applicant was involved in pressuring and intimidating the witness through threats, phone calls, and attempts to forcibly bring him to court to change his testimony. Furthermore, the applicant participated in the conspiracy to influence, intimidate, and coerce the witness, thereby obstructing the due course of justice. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, and the fact that though the applicant was involved in threatening and pressuring eyewitness Pramod Verma to give a false statement in favour of accused Anjana Jangde in the earlier case and he is accused of participating with others in intimidating the witness and attempting to influence the court proceedings, forming the basis of offences under Sections 232(1) and 190 BNS, but considering the fact that co-accused, namely, 5 Anjana Jangde has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2025 in MCRCA No.1923 of 2025 and the applicant has no criminal antecedent, as such, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Balkrishna Jandge, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil