1 2026:CGHC:19384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2064 of 2026 Tameshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Dihu Ram Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Mohandi, P.S. Magarlod, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Magarlod, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. (through V.C.) For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 243/2023 registered at Police Station Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 384, 509(b), 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) of I.T. Act 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged an FIR before the concerned police station with the intent that the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant namely Tameshwar Kumar Sahu, with mala fide intention, established contact with the victim through video calling. During such interaction, the accused/applicant clandestinely recorded the video call by way of screen recording without the knowledge and consent of the victim. Thereafter, the accused/applicant started blackmailing the victim by threatening to make the recorded video viral on social media platforms, thereby extorting money from her. It is further alleged that upon the victim’s refusal to meet the unlawful demand, the accused/applicant created a fake Instagram ID in the name of the victim and uploaded obscene photographs and videos with the intention to defame her and outrage her modesty. The said acts of the accused/applicant resulted in severe mental harassment, humiliation and reputational damage to the victim. During the course of investigation, the statement of the complainant/victim was duly recorded and the place of occurrence was inspected. The victim produced relevant digital evidence, including screenshots obtained from Instagram and obscene content, which were seized and preserved in a pen drive in accordance with law. Further, a detailed technical report in respect of the fake Instagram ID was obtained from the District Cyber Cell, Dhamtari, which prima facie substantiates the involvement of the accused/applicant. It is also pertinent to mention that upon coming to know about the registration of the FIR, the accused, with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence, deliberately disposed of his mobile phone (Oppo Model A54) along with the SIM card by throwing the same into a canal drain near Kurud, thereby attracting the offence under Section 201 3 of IPC. Thus, the material collected during the course of investigation clearly establishes the active involvement of the accused/applicant in committing the alleged offences, reflecting his criminal intent and deliberate acts of extortion, cyber exploitation, and destruction of evidence. Accordingly, Crime No. 243/2023 has been registered at Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 509(B), and 201 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act and the applicant/accused was taken into custody on 30.12.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that on 15.04.2023, the father of the applicant had already lodged a missing information report before the concerned police station regarding the loss of the applicant’s mobile phone and SIM card and as per the mobile location details available on record, the said mobile phone was traced to locations in West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh Circle, which is duly reflected in Annexure A/3 forming part of the charge sheet. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 30.12.2025. She further submits that the applicant is a labourer by profession and a permanent resident of District Dhamtari (C.G.), and during the entire period from the date of the alleged incident till his arrest, he was working as a labourer in the said district. It is additionally contended that there existed a prior love affair between the applicant and the complainant and therefore, 4 the alleged photographs and videos were already present in the applicant’s mobile phone, which was subsequently stolen and the applicant has no role in the alleged misuse of the said data further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is directly involved in the offence, having blackmailed the victim by recording video calls and thereafter created a fake Instagram ID to upload obscene content for extortion. It is contended that the digital evidence and Cyber Cell report clearly establish his involvement. The plea regarding loss of mobile phone is false and an afterthought, particularly in view of the fact that the applicant himself destroyed the mobile and SIM to cause disappearance of evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent of a similar nature, though already disposed of, which reflects his propensity to commit such offences. Considering the serious nature of allegations and the likelihood of tampering with evidence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 30.12.2025 and the fact that in the present case, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant 5 has one previous criminal antecedent of similar nature and no further interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Tameshwar Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 243/2023 registered at Police Station Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 384, 509(b), 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) of I.T. Act, be released on bail on his 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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 6 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal