NAMAN SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010329702026 2026:CGHC:44682
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7864 of 2026
1 - Naman Soni S/o Umesh Soni Aged About 21 Years R/o Gaurinagar,
Outpost Chikhali, P.S. Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
… Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O P.S. Basantpur, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parth
Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Non-applicant
: Ms. Ankita Shukla, P.L.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
15/10/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 328/2026, registered at
Police Station Basantpur, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for offence
punishable under Sections 74 and 308 of BNS and Section 8 of
POCSO Act.

2
2. As per the case of the prosecution, mother of the victim filed a
written complaint alleging that her minor daughter, aged about 15
years, was acquainted with the applicant and for the last 8-9
months, the applicant deceived her, coaxed her, trapped her in the
web of his love, molested her and mentally exploited her and by
threatening and blackmailing the victim, started asking for gold
jewellery from home, which the victim, out of fear, has been giving
by taking the gold items from the house for the last several months
and thereafter, the applicant has mortgaged the said gold jewellery
items. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered FIR
against the applicant for the aforesaid offence.
3. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the applicant, would argue that
false allegation of molestation has been levelled against the
applicant as the applicant and the victim were in a love affair and
the relationship between them was consensual in nature. He would
further contend that in her statement under Section 183 of BNSS,
the victim has categorically stated that the applicant was in dire
need of money and therefore, both of them had mortgaged the
jewellery items in the market and there is no allegation of extortion,
etc. With regard to criminal antecedents, he would submit that the
applicant has two previous criminal antecedents registered in the
year 2025, however, none of them are of similar nature. He would
lastly submit that the investigation has been completed and charge-
sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since
17/07/2026 and since conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time, thus, the appellant be released on bail.

3
4. On the other hand, Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned counsel appearing
for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and
submit that the applicant trapped the minor victim in his web of love
and blackmailed her into giving him gold ornaments from her home
and thereafter, mortgaged the said gold ornaments in the market.
She would further submit that the applicant has two live criminal
antecedents registered in the year 2025 for offence punishable
under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 191(2) and 127(2) of BNS,
therefore, he is not liable to be released on bail.
5. The parents of the victim appeared before this Court through video
conferencing from the concerned District Legal Services Authority
(DLSA) and made serious objection in grant of bail to the applicant.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary as well as the material available on record.
7. Taking consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of the offence, particularly considering that
though the appellant has two live criminal antecedents registered in
the year 2025 but none of them are of similar nature and also
looking to the fact that in her statement under Section 183 of
BNSS, the victim has made it very clear that she herself provided
the gold jewellery to the applicant; further having considered the
fact that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already
been submitted; the applicant is in custody since 17/07/2026 and
since conclusion of trial would take considerable time, this Court,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is of the
considered view that a fit case for grant of regular bail is made out.

4
Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is allowed .
8. 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 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, and
(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.
9. The observation made herein-above is for the purpose of deciding
this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet