1 CGHC010321912026 2026:CGHC:38161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7938 of 2026 Tameshwar Sonwani (Wrongly Mentioned As Tameshwari Sonwani) S/o Suresh Kumar Sonwani, Aged About 19 Years R/o Sector 28, Nawagaon, P. S. - Rakhi, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O4cer, Police Station -Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. This is the 8rst bail application 8led 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. 289/2026 registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 308(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.05.2026, the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 complainant Krishna Kumar Tripathi lodged a written report at Police Station Civil Lines stating that the holders of mobile numbers 89822xxxxx and 86026xxxxx had sent an obscene video of the complainant along with some women through WhatsApp on his mobile phone and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, threatening to make the said video viral if the demanded amount was not paid. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid o;ence was registered and investigation was undertaken. During investigation, after tracing the mobile numbers, the present applicant along with a juvenile was taken into custody. It is alleged that during questioning, they admitted to having planned the o;ence and threatened the complainant with making the video viral for demanding Rs.50,000/-. The mobile phone alleged to have been used in the commission of the o;ence was also seized on the basis of the memorandum statement of the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged o;ence and the material collected by the prosecution is not su4cient, prima facie, to hold him guilty. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is in judicial custody since 21.05.2026. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused namely Sayyed Saif Ali has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7127/2026 vide order dated 05.08.2026 and therefore, on the ground of parity also the present applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant, opposes the bail application. However, he could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co-accused namely Sayyed Saif Ali has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7127/2026 vide order dated 05.08.2026 and the applicant has no criminal antecedent. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o;ence, period of detention of the applicant since 21.05.2026 and further considering the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and similarly situated co-accused namely Sayyed Saif Ali has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7127/2026 vide order dated 05.08.2026 and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the said co- accused thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Tameshwar Sonwani, involved in Crime No. 289/2026 registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 308(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 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 8le an undertaking to the e;ect 4 that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 8xed 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 8xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su4cient 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 8xed 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 8xed 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 su4cient 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. O4ce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal