1 2026:CGHC:24717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4939 of 2026 Pankaj Kaushik S/o Rajkumar Kaushik Aged About 28 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Sabadad, Police Station And Tehsil - Sadabad, District Hathras Uttar Pradesh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 18.06.2026 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 168/2023 registered at Police Station – Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 420, 388, 120(B), 419, 471 and 34 of the ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.06.18 18:24:09 +0530 2 Indian Penal Code and Section 66(c) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant has lodged written report to the SHO of police station Kotwali Baikunthpur, District Koriya mentioning therein that on 21.05.2023 he received one video call on Whatsapp mobile application registered with SIM number 9977677183 to which he picked it up assuming that video call is of his relative. As soon as he picked up the incoming video call, on the mobile he saw one naked girl, upon which he immediately switch off his phone and deleted the call. After some time, the said girl has sent one photograph of screen shot on his mobile and demanded 50,000/- and thereafter he deleted all the chats. On 22.05.2023, he again received a call from mobile number 9589904394 threatening him to get the photo deleted from Whatapp or else his photo would be uploaded on YouTube social media platform and further provided one another mobile number to talk in this regard and gave mobile number 8962046734 of one Devendra Kumar. When he talked to Devendra Kumar, he demanded 23,000/- for deleting the photograph which was deposited by complainant in YES Bank Account No. 101398700012301 and ₹85,000/- in SBI Bank account No. 41847400160 in the name of Kishan Kumar @ Krishan Kumar and similarly deposited further amount on different dates in different account numbers. He was also threatened that the girl with whom he chatted has jumped from the roof and the cost of medical expenses is 2.50 Lakhs. Accordingly, under threat he deposited a total sum of 31,24,514/-. Based on the report, F.I.R. was registered and during investigation applicant were arrested. 3 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged. He further submits that applicant has been made accused only because an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs has been deposited in his account. The said amount has been deposited by other co-accused namely Akshay Kumar. There is no evidence which could show the direct involvement of the present applicant in said crime. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for applicant and would submit that applicant has been specifically named in the complaint stating that applicant has threatened the complainant for depositing the amount. He submits that during course of investigation investigating agency has collected document showing deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) in the account of applicant. Applicant has participated in committing the o crime. He further submits that the bail application of other co-accused namely Maqsood @ Makku, Akshyay Kumar and Kisan Kumar has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 2938 of 2026, MCRC No. 2839 of 2026 and MCRC No. 544 of 2024, respectively. The allegations upon the present applicant is similar to the accused persons whose bail applications have already been rejected by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application. 6. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which crime is committed, I do not find 4 present to be a fit case to allow the application, accordingly, application is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza JUDGE