1 2026:CGHC:26639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5702 of 2026 Akshay Soni S/o Ratan Lal Soni Aged About 29 Years R/o Panchsheel Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ( Wrongly Mentioned Cause Title Of Order) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Durg Kotwali, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 195/2026 registered at Police Station Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 232(1) of B.N.S. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that offence under Section 232(1) of the BNS registered against the present applicant at Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, arises out of a complaint lodged by Nikita Soni on 16.04.2026. The complainant alleges that she had KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 previously registered a criminal case (Crime No. 99/2026) against the applicant, Akshay Soni, in which he was subsequently released on bail. It is further alleged that, after his release on bail, the applicant repeatedly contacted and kept a watch on the complainant's family in order to pressurize them to withdraw the said case. The specific allegation giving rise to the present FIR is that on 15.04.2026, at about 08:50 PM, near Pachripara, Durg, the applicant confronted the complainant, her mother and her brother, hurled obscene abuses, engaged in a physical altercation with them and extended threats to kill them with the intention of compelling them to withdraw the pending criminal case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present complainant has been repeatedly lodging false and malicious criminal cases against the applicant out of personal animosity and with an oblique motive to harass him and extort money. It is argued that the complainant had earlier lodged Case Crime No. 258/2024 at Police Station City Kotwali, Durg for offences under Sections 294, 323, 341, 354, 354-D, 365 and 506 of the IPC, wherein the applicant has already been acquitted after the complainant herself turned hostile. Thereafter, the same complainant lodged another FIR bearing Crime No. 99/2026 at Police Station City Kotwali, Durg for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 74 and 78(1)(i) of the B.N.S., in which the applicant has already been enlarged on bail and the matter is presently pending at the stage of framing of charge. It is further submitted that the 3 present FIR has been lodged with the allegation that the applicant was threatening the complainant to withdraw the aforesaid criminal case, however, in fact, it was the complainant who had approached the applicant for settlement of the dispute and demanded money and upon his refusal, the present false complaint has been lodged. It is further argued that the allegation that the applicant and his family members had been calling the complainant from different mobile numbers is not substantiated by any Call Detail Records collected during investigation. It is also submitted that the prosecution case is self-contradictory inasmuch as, while the FIR alleges that the incident occurred at a public place in the presence of the complainant's mother and brother, the notice issued under Section 179 of the B.N.S.S. itself records that there is no eye- witness to the alleged incident. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is now required, he is in custody since 03.05.2026, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, he prays for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there are specific allegations against the applicant of threatening and intimidating the complainant and her family members with the intention of compelling them to withdraw the earlier criminal case pending against him. It is submitted that the present offence has been committed after the applicant was released on bail in the earlier case, which prima facie reflects an attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses. The 4 discrepancies pointed out by the applicant are matters of trial and cannot be examined at the stage of consideration of bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the likelihood of the applicant influencing the prosecution witnesses if released on bail, it is prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the complainant had earlier lodged two criminal cases against the present applicant, out of which in Crime No. 258/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, the applicant has already been acquitted after the complainant herself turned hostile, whereas in the subsequent Crime No. 99/2026, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail and the said case is still pending at the stage of framing of charge, the allegation in the present case being that the applicant was threatening the complainant to withdraw the aforesaid criminal case, the fact that the applicant has pointed out certain prima facie discrepancies in the prosecution case, including the absence of any Call Detail Records supporting the allegation of repeated telephonic threats and the inconsistency regarding the presence of eye-witnesses, which are matters to be tested during trial, the investigation having been completed and the charge-sheet having already been filed and the applicant being in custody since 03.05.2026, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant being required and the 5 conclusion of the trial being likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Akshay Soni, involved in Crime No. 195/2026 registered at Police Station Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 232(1) of B.N.S., 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 6 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 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.diurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal