1 2026:CGHC:26310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5662 of 2026 Saifuddin Ansari S/o Kasimuddin Ansari Aged About 37 Years R/o Nayapara, Shankar Chowk Gole, Bazar , Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/06/2026 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 116/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Sections 376, 384 and 506 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on 08.08.2023 at Hotel Singh Palace, Station Road, Raipur. During the physical relationship, the accused allegedly took her obscene photos and videos without her knowledge. He then allegedly threatened to send those photos and videos to her family members and, by blackmailing her, extorted Rs.1,00,000 (in cash and through PhonePe). The complainant also alleged that the accused mentally harassed her. Based on her written complaint, Ganj Police Station registered Crime No. 116/2026 against the accused. Since the matter is a sensitive case, the FIR has not been made available on the public portal. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the victim is a married woman and is the mother of five children, both the victim and the applicant were employed at the same workplace and were known to each other. He also submits that the alleged physical relationship between them was consensual and there is an unexplained delay of about two years and eight months in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case, the medical examination of the victim did 3 not reveal any external or internal injuries on her person, thereby lending support to the defence version. The applicant is in jail since 19.04.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, 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 applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant allegedly established physical relations with the victim, secretly captured her obscene photographs and videos, threatened to circulate the same to her family members, and, by blackmailing her, allegedly extorted Rs.1,00,000/- from her, therefore, the applicant 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 applicant since 19.04.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly established physical relations with the victim, secretly captured her obscene photographs and videos, threatened to circulate the same to her family members, and, by blackmailing her, allegedly extorted Rs.1,00,000/- from her, but considering the fact that there is delay of about two years and eight months in lodging the FIR and the applicant has no criminal antecedent, further charge- 4 sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Saifuddin Ansari, involved in Crime No. 116/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 384 and 506 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 sufficient 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 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. 5 (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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil