1 CGHC010205542026 2026:CGHC:28992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4932 of 2026 Kishan Kumar Sukhdev S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Pinkapara, Outpost Pinkapara, Tehsil Devri, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer, Police Station Dongarhgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 135/2026 registered at Police Station-Dongargaon, District-Rajnandgaon, for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(1), 75(1)(2) and 351(3) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/victim lodged a written complaint at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon on 22.04.2026, alleging that the present applicant is KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 her distant relative and that they were acquainted with each other. It is alleged that they used to communicate over phone and meet during family occasions. The victim further alleged that for about two years, the applicant had been showing improper intentions towards her. It is alleged that about five months prior to the complaint, the applicant took the victim to his house on the pretext of showing the premises and allegedly behaved inappropriately with her. It is further alleged that the applicant was in possession of certain photographs of the victim and threatened to misuse them, thereby pressurizing her. The victim also alleged that the applicant extended threats to her and her family members. Further, it was alleged that after her engagement was finalized on 19.04.2026, the applicant contacted the prospective groom and issued threats regarding their marriage. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the police registered the FIR and arrested the applicant in the alleged commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel contends that the material available on record does not support the allegations levelled against the applicant and that the medical examination does not 3 disclose any injury or other material consistent with the alleged incident. 4. Learned counsel further submits that, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as it stands, the essential ingredients required for constituting the alleged offences are not made out. It is also submitted that the applicant and the victim were known to each other and their relationship arose out of acquaintance. The allegations made against the applicant are matters requiring adjudication during the course of trial and at this stage, continued incarceration of the applicant is not warranted. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the applicant is in jail since 23.04.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further detention for an indefinite period. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the non-applicant/State oppose the bail application and submits that from perusal of the 183 of BNSS statement of the victim, it appears that the complainant/victim has specifically alleged that the applicant, who is her distant relative, had developed improper intentions towards her for about two years. It is submitted that the applicant used to communicate with the victim over phone and, taking advantage of their acquaintance, allegedly took her to his house at Pinkapar on the pretext of 4 showing his house, where he allegedly behaved inappropriately with her. Learned State Counsel further submits that the complainant has specifically alleged that the applicant is in possession of her photographs on his mobile phone and had threatened to circulate the same, while also allegedly pressurizing her and extending threats to her and her family members. It is further submitted that after the marriage proposal of the victim was finalized on 19.04.2026, the applicant allegedly contacted the prospective groom and threatened him by stating that the victim was his girlfriend and that he would cause harm if he married her. 6. Learned State Counsel further submits that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature and disclose a prima facie case against him. It is argued that the applicant allegedly attempted to intimidate the victim and interfere with her personal life, and therefore, his release on bail at this stage may adversely affect the complainant/victim. Learned State Counsel further submits that the applicant has allegedly extended threats not only to the victim but also to her family members, stating that he would ruin their lives. Considering the nature of allegations, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 7. I have perused the bail application and have also gone through the case diary with the assistance of the learned State counsel. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as 183 of BNSS statement of the victim, this Court finds that the allegations 5 levelled against the applicant are serious in nature. The complainant/victim has made specific allegations regarding the conduct of the applicant, including alleged threats and attempts to pressurize her and her family members. The material collected during investigation indicates a prima facie case against the applicant. At this stage, considering the nature of allegations and the possibility of interference with the complainant/victim or the course of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of regular bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant-Kishan Kumar Sukhdev filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No.135/2026 registered at Police Station-Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon, for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 75(1) (1), 75(1)(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal