1 CGHC010366772026 2026:CGHC:43843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9005 of 2026 Ravindra Bharti S/o Late Shatruhan Bharti, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dhengbhat, Satnami Para, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Details Of Applicant Properly Not Mentioned In The Cause Title Of Impugned Order Sheet And Correct Details Is Being Mentioned) (Father Middle Name Is Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order Sheet And Correct Is Mentioned As Per Aadhar Card). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O Police Station Chhawanni, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Details Of Resp. Properly Not Mentioned In The Entire Impugned Order Sheet). ... Non-Applicant For applicant : Mr. Mohammad Parvej, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/10/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Crime No. 511/2026, registered at Police Station Chhawani, District Durg (C.G.), for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(3), and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The applicant is in jail since 25.07.2026. 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Saumya Khan, lodged a written report at Police Station Chhawani, District Durg, alleging that the present applicant was repeatedly calling her on her mobile number and various other numbers. It is alleged that the applicant prepared and transmitted an obscene/morphed video and photograph depicting the complainant along with himself, sending the same to the complainant's husband via social media platform Instagram, and pressurized her to take a divorce from her husband. It is further alleged that the applicant demanded sexual favours, and also extorted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant under threat of defaming and circulating her obscene visuals. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence under Sections 308(2) and 308(3) BNS was registered, and subsequently, upon recording the statement of the complainant, Section 79 BNS was added. The applicant was arrested on 25.07.2026 and remanded to judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated falsely due to personal differences with the complainant, who was his former colleague at Unity Small Finance Bank, Bhilai. The investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the electronic devices have been seized and sent to FSL. The complainant had also filed an affidavit expressing no objection to bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 25.07.2026 and conclusion of trial may take time; thus, learned counsel prayed for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant has indulged in cyber- crimes and harassment by generating and transmitting obscene, morphed/AI-generated media of a married woman directly to her husband to destroy her marital life. The applicant not only demanded sexual favours but also attempted extortion by demanding Rs. 50,000/- 3 under threat of public defamation; thus, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary with circumspection. 6. Taking into consideration the serious nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant; the fact that the applicant sent AI-generated/morphed obscene videos and photographs of the victim to her husband over social media, requesting and coercing her for sexual favours, and further extorted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under threat of defaming her; such conduct constitutes a gross infringement of the modesty, dignity, and fundamental right to privacy of a woman; the circumstance that the applicant appears to have exerted pressure and obtained a "no-objection" affidavit from the complainant during the proceedings before the learned Court below, which itself demonstrates a clear propensity to influence and dominate the prosecutrix; this Court is of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the dignity of a woman has been violated, it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the First Bail Application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the BNSS is hereby rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim