1 2026:CGHC:4736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 128 of 2026 Smt. Pooja Singh Gond W/o Pawan Singh Gond Aged About 27 Years R/o Vijay Nagar, Near Bank Colony, Mohan Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Jhagrakhand, District - M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.157/2025 registered at Police Station – Jhagrakhand District – M.C.B. (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2) of the BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 11:59:04 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case is that, on the complaint lodged by the complainant Kishun Singh, it was alleged that the present applicant, Pooja Singh Gond (earlier Pooja Ramteke), married his son Pawan Singh Gond against his wishes, due to which the complainant disowned his son and severed all relations with the couple. It is further alleged that, following marital disputes, the applicant filed a maintenance case and, during its pendency, sent messages to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- while threatening social defamation, and thereafter circulated obscene messages and posts on social media against the complainant’s daughter, Anita, making allegations of elopement and immoral conduct. On the basis of the said complaint, the police of Police Station Jhagrakhand registered FIR dated 09.10.2025 in Crime No. 157/2025 for offences punishable under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act against the applicant Pooja Ramteke as well as her father, Uday Ramteke, and mother, Annapurna Ramteke. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, at the instance of the complainant Kishun Singh, who is her father-in-law. The applicant Pooja Singh Gond was married to Pawan Singh Gond on 23.11.2023 after a long history of exploitation, pregnancy, criminal proceedings under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC against Pawan Singh, and his subsequent marriage to her pursuant to bail granted by this Hon’ble Court. Despite marriage and birth of a female child Ku. Pari, who is presently about two years old and wholly dependent upon the applicant, Pawan Singh again deserted the applicant, following which she was subjected to assault and expelled from her matrimonial home, 3 leading to registration of FIR No. 18/2024 against the complainant and his daughter. As no action was taken on her repeated complaints, the applicant was constrained to initiate maintenance proceedings, wherein interim maintenance has been granted in her favour, and multiple matrimonial proceedings between the parties are pending before the Family Court. It is further submitted that the present FIR is a counterblast to the said proceedings, lodged with mala fide intent to harass the applicant and her parents, without any factual basis, as no mobile phone has been seized, no proper accused identified, and no certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has been filed with the alleged electronic evidence. The applicant has never threatened or demanded any money from the complainant, has no criminal antecedents, the offences are triable by a Magistrate, co- accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court, and the applicant is a permanent resident with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence and is ready to abide by all conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, and further taking into account that the co-accused, namely Smt. Annapurna Ramteke and Uday Ramteke, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this 4 Court in MCRCA No. 56 of 2026 vide order dated 12.01.2026, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Smt. Pooja Singh Gond, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) she shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav