1 CGHC010306962026 2026:CGHC:41716 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7356 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Dewangan S/o Kunj Ram Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Malipara Boirdadar, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Chandrapur, District Sakti, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2026, registered at Police Station Chandrapur, District Sakti (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 351(2) of the BNS and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act. 2. As per the prosecution case in brief, the victim became acquainted with the applicant through Facebook about two years ago. Taking KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 advantage of the said friendship, the applicant allegedly procured her objectionable photographs and videos through WhatsApp and thereafter demanded money from her by threatening to circulate the same on social media. It is alleged that the victim, in order to protect her reputation, transferred money to the applicant on several occasions. When she stopped making payments and communicating with him, the applicant allegedly forwarded her objectionable photographs and videos to her family members and relatives, thereby blackmailing and causing mental harassment to her. Thereafter, the victim lodged the FIR on 14.07.2026 and the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further contend that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and baseless and further there is no photo or video has been seized from the present applicant and in the present case, charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 14.07.2026. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the applicant had procured the objectionable photographs and videos of the victim and thereafter threatened her with circulation of the same on social media, thereby blackmailing and harassing her. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the period of detention of the applicant since 14.07.2026, the fact that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. - S/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal