Chhattisgarh High Court

Anticipatory bail granted to septuagenarian accused of sexual harassment amid delayed FIR and property dispute.

MANOHAR MARKANDEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: April 22, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant, a 70-year-old man, was accused of sending "illegal" and "vulgar" messages to a victim on December 27, 2025.

Source reference: para. 2, 4

The victim, a married woman, operated a business out of premises rented from the applicant.

Source reference: para. 3

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated following a dispute regarding the presence of a male individual in the victim's shop and highlighted a two-month delay in lodging the FIR.

Source reference: para. 3

The State opposed bail, citing the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering his age, the nature of the allegations, and the procedural delay in filing the complaint.

Source reference: para. 1, 6
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

Source reference: para. 1

The substantive offense was registered under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which pertains to sexual harassment.

Source reference: para. 1, 2

The court also considered the procedural requirement of recording the victim's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS.

Source reference: para. 4
04

Reasoning

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against several mitigating factors presented by the applicant. It noted the advanced age of the applicant (70 years) and specifically observed a significant delay of two months in lodging the FIR.

Source reference: para. 3, 6

While the State argued that the vulgar messages justified detention, the Court found that the facts and circumstances—specifically the landlord-tenant dispute and the delay—warranted the exercise of discretionary power without expressing a final opinion on the merits of the case.

Source reference: para. 6

The Court determined that the applicant's liberty could be protected subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the trial.

Source reference: para. 7
05

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application.

The Court held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety.

Source reference: para. 7

The relief was granted subject to conditions: the applicant must not influence witnesses, must appear for all trial dates, must submit Aadhaar verification with a postcard-sized photo, and must not involve himself in similar future offenses.

Source reference: para. 7(a)-(e)
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

MANOHAR MARKANDEYvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · April 22, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment