1 CGHC010166932026 2026:CGHC:29981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4047 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Tandon S/o Bhusau Tandon Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Nariyara, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Details Of The Applicant Obtained Through Deponent) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station - Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 114/2026 registered at Police Station : Mulmula, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief is that on 04.04.2026 at about 09:00 A.M., the applicant allegedly went to the house of the prosecutrix and made unwelcome advances by expressing his RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 affection towards her. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix objected to his conduct, the applicant persisted in his behaviour, used obscene and abusive language, and, with the intention of outraging her modesty, caught hold of her hand and arm and applied criminal force. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR bearing Crime No. 114/2026 was registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 74 and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was arrested on 07.04.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the applicant was not present at the alleged place of occurrence on the date and time of the incident and was attending the marriage function of his nephew at his sister’s residence in Village Mudpar B (Kuthur) from 03.04.2026 to 06.04.2026, which creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there is no allegation of any grievous injury having been caused to the victim and that the alleged incident is of a limited nature. He further submits that there exists a prior dispute between the parties concerning the applicant’s betel cart/shop situated near the victim’s house and that, on an earlier occasion, the victim along with her supporters had allegedly thrown away the applicant’s betel cart, providing a motive for false implication. He further submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which one case is disposed of and two cases are pending, is 3 in jail since 07.04.2026, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and are supported by the statements of the prosecutrix and other material collected during the course of investigation. It is contended that the applicant had deliberately approached the prosecutrix, made unwelcome advances, used obscene and abusive language, and applied criminal force with the intention of outraging her modesty. It is also submitted that the investigation has revealed sufficient prima facie material connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged offences. She also submits that the applicant has three more criminal antecedents. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the contention of the applicant regarding his absence from the place of occurrence on the relevant date and time, the existence of a prior dispute between the parties, the absence of any allegation of grievous injury, and further taking into consideration that though the 4 applicant has three criminal antecedents, but out of which one case is disposed of and two cases are pending and further the charge- sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 07.04.2026, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let applicant, Mukesh Kumar Tandon, involved in Crime No. 114/2026 registered at Police Station : Mulmula, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74 and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount 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. 5 (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. (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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan