Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Alleged Gold-Sale Facilitator In ₹14.5-Lakh Blackmail Case, Citing No Direct Role In Threats

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after being arrested in Crime No. 1122/2026, registered for offences under Sections 308(5), 296, 351(3), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR alleged that co-accused blackmailed and threatened the complainant’s granddaughter, obtaining Rs. 14.50 lakhs and about 450 grams of gold jewellery. The applicant’s alleged role emerged from co-accused persons’ memorandum statements; police alleged that he helped dispose of the jewellery and recovered Rs. 48,500 from him.

The applicant denied involvement in the threats or extortion, noted that his name was absent from the FIR and complaint, and relied on the filing of the charge-sheet and his custody since 2 August 2026. The State opposed bail, citing the alleged role, recovery and one criminal antecedent.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provided the basis for the application for regular bail.

The Court assessed the nature and specific role of the alleged conduct, the material on record, the applicant’s period of custody, the progress of the investigation and whether further custodial interrogation was required.

No precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The Court noted that the applicant was alleged to have facilitated the sale of jewellery and received a commission, and that Rs. 48,500 had been seized from him. However, he was not alleged to have directly threatened or intimidated the victim or obtained the money and jewellery from her, and his name did not appear in the original complaint or FIR.

Given his custody, the substantial progress of the investigation and the conclusion that he was no longer required for custodial interrogation, the Court considered that bail was justified notwithstanding the prosecution’s opposition.

The Court directed the applicant’s release upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Bail was subject to conditions requiring availability for police interrogation when required, non-interference with persons acquainted with the case, and conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.