1 2026:CGHC:18108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3591 of 2026 Dani Rana @ Dipendra Rana S/o Uttam Rana Aged About 24 Years Resident of Village Rafel, Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 17/2026, registered at Police Station Singhoda, District – Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 and 67(A) of Information Technology Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, the victim made a written complaint at the Police Station stating that the present applicant broke off her engagement and also sent her obscene photographs to the persons with whom her marriage was fixed. It is further alleged that the applicant ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.22 11:26:53 +0530 2 threatened to kill any person who married the victim, as a result of which her marriage was called off. It is also alleged that the applicant repeatedly called the victim and threatened that if she did not marry him, he would not allow her to marry anyone else and would circulate her obscene photographs and videos with the intention of ruining her prospects of marriage. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an FIR for the offences mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act that would constitute any of the offences mentioned above. He submits that besides the above, the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufÏcient to hold the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences. There was a love relationship between the applicant and the victim for a considerable period of time, and when the said relationship was disclosed to the parents of the victim, the FIR was lodged against the applicant on false and frivolous grounds. No act, as alleged in the FIR, has been committed by the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant has never sent any obscene photographs or videos of the victim to any person. Further, the mobile number mentioned in the FIR, from which the prosecution alleges that such messages were sent, does not belong to the present applicant. He further submits that the applicant is a young person and the sole earning member of his family. He has no previous criminal antecedents. If he is kept in custody for a prolonged period, his career will be adversely affected. He further submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 11.02.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She submits that the victim, in her complaint, alleged that the applicant broke off her engagement, circulated her obscene photographs, and threatened to harm anyone who married her, leading to the cancellation of her marriage. It is further alleged that the applicant repeatedly threatened to defame her by circulating such material if she refused to marry him. Therefore, looking to the act of the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the serious accusations that the applicant broke off the victim’s engagement, circulated her obscene photographs, and extended threats to harm any person who would marry her, resulting in the cancellation of her marriage and also the repeated threats attributed to the applicant to defame the victim by circulating such material in order to coerce her, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Dani Rana @ Dipendra Rana, involved in Crime No. 17/2026, registered at Police Station Singhoda, District – Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 4 9. OfÏce 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 Abhishek