1 2026:CGHC:16967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1787 of 2026 Nikhil Raj Singh S/o Rankendra Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sijari Khurd, P/s Mauranipur, Sijari Khurd, District Jhansi, (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P/s Chhura, Gariyaband, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. (Through V.C.) For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.04.2026 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. 183/2025 registered at Police Station : Chhura, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 308(2), 318(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 238, 111(2)(b), 351(3) and 3(5) of the of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Khemchand Saho, lodged a report before the concerned Police Station stating that he was posted as a Patwari and that the present applicant, on the basis of some warrant allegedly issued by the Court at Jhansi, had threatened him and, under ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.15 10:54:35 +0530 2 such threat, extorted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly continued to threaten him to issue a lease in respect of government land. The complainant further stated in his complaint that the applicant was threatening to implicate him in a false case and had intimidated him. It was also alleged that on 30.11.2025, the applicant, along with co-accused Chandan Sen, molested the complainant’s wife. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence under Sections 308(2), 74, and 3(5) of the BNS (with other sections added subsequently), bearing Crime No. 183/2025, was registered against the applicant and other co- accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant was arrested by Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.), on 03.12.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 74, 308(2), 318(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 238, 111(2)(b), 351(3), and 3(5) of the BNS, and was produced before the concerned Court, which remanded him to judicial custody. Despite his innocence, the applicant continues to remain in judicial custody. It is submitted that no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him incarcerated. He submits that serious allegations of threat, intimidation, and molestation have been levelled against the applicant, however, a perusal of the FIR reveals that the alleged incidents are stated to have occurred between 11.08.2025 and 30.11.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 02.12.2025. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR prima facie indicates that the story has been concocted to falsely implicate the applicant. He also submits that the falsity of the prosecution case is further evident from the fact that the complainant, who is merely a Patwari/record keeper, has alleged that he 3 was forced to issue a lease of government land, which is beyond his authority and jurisdiction. He further submits that present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 03.12.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some more 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 submits that the complainant, a Patwari, alleged that the applicant extorted Rs.1,00,000/- from him under threat on the pretext of a warrant and continued to pressurize him for issuance of a lease of government land. It is further alleged that the applicant intimidated the complainant and threatened to implicate him in a false case. She also submits that on 30.11.2025, the applicant, along with a co-accused, molested the complainant’s wife. She submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the IPC of the year 2009 and 2010, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, particularly that the applicant has been allegedly falsely implicated that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in respect of the alleged incidents said to have occurred between 11.08.2025 and 30.11.2025, which prima facie creates doubt regarding the prosecution story, the allegation regarding issuance of lease of government land appears inherently improbable inasmuch as the complainant, being a Patwari, has no authority to grant such lease and further considering that 4 no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and also considering that the applicant has been in custody since 03.12.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, though the applicant has two criminal antecedents under the IPC, which are old and stale cases, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let applicant, Nikhil Raj Singh, involved in Crime No. 183/2025 registered at Police Station : Chhura, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 308(2), 318(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 238, 111(2)(b), 351(3) and 3(5) of the of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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. (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 5 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 Abhishek