1 2026:CGHC:5824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9800 of 2025 1 - Jatin Yadav Alias Vikki S/o Raju Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Village Birkoni, P S, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, C.G. (As Per Impugned Order) 2 - Manish Yadav S/o Ravishankar Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Village Birkoni, P S, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, C.G. (As Per Impugned Order) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/02/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 417/2025 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 115(2), 79 of Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 67, 67(A), 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.09.2025, the complainant was sitting with Manish Dadsena at an open place when some unknown persons secretly recorded an obscene video of them. Thereafter, the accused persons confronted them, assaulted Manish Dadsena, and demanded money by threatening to circulate the video. Under coercion, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- in cash and Rs. 4,000/- through an online mode was paid to the accused. On 22.09.2025, upon learning from Manish Dadsena that the video had gone viral, the complainant lodged the FIR. Since the offences relate to a woman, the FIR was not available on the official website of the Chhattisgarh Police and therefore could not be filed online. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the essential ingredients of Section 115 of the BNS and the relevant provisions of the IT Act are not attracted in the present case, as no alleged video has been identified by any person nor has the same been made part of the charge-sheet. There is no material on record, including any video or other clinching evidence, to substantiate the allegations against the applicants. Further, the applicants have no connection or dealings 3 whatsoever with the complainant or Manish Dadsena, and the FIR has been lodged against them without any basis. He also submits that no such video or supporting material has been recovered or produced during investigation. The applicants are in jail since 26.09.2025, so far as their antecedents are concerned, applicant No.1 has no criminal antecedent and applicant No.2 has one criminal antecedent of the year 2022 under the IPC, further the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicants are alleged to have confronted the complainant and Manish Dadsena, assaulted Manish Dadsena, and extorted money by threatening to circulate an obscene video. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, applicant No.1 has no criminal antecedent and applicant No.2 has one criminal antecedent of the year 2022 under the IPC, therefore, the applicants is not entitled for grant of 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 applicants since 26.09.2025, the fact that though the applicants are alleged to have confronted the complainant and Manish Dadsena, assaulted 4 Manish Dadsena, and extorted money by threatening to circulate an obscene video, but considering the fact that applicant No.1 has no criminal antecedent and applicant No.2 has only one criminal antecedent, which is of the year 2022 under the IPC, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicants-Jatin Yadav Alias Vikki and Manish Yadav, involved in Crime No. 417/2025 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 115(2), 79 of Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 67, 67(A), 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against 5 them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. 10. Certified copy today. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil