Chattisgarh High Court
Arjun Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11717
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2291 of 2026
Arjun Sahu S/o Shri Bhorelal Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Gram
Amhar, Thana And Tahsil- Patna, District Korea (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Baikunthpur District-
Korea (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
11.03.2026
1.This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 412/2025 registered at Police Station- Baikunthpur District- Korea, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20/12/2025 the complainant Amresh Kumar Pandey (Patwari), Baikunthpur submitted a written application stating that an unknown person made a WhatsApp call from mobile number 8103076247 to his RAHUL mobile number 9009400833 and sent a video clip which was DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 automatically deleted immediately after it was viewed. In the said video, an attempt was made to falsely implicate the complainant by showing that money was being offered to him in lieu of some official work and thereafter he was threatened that the video would be made viral on social media unless an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid in cash for deleting the same. It is further alleged that on 21/12/2025, the complainant again received a WhatsApp call asking him to arrange the money and come to the Bachra Pondi area. Acting upon the information, the complainant along with the accompanying staff and witnesses proceeded to the said area for investigation. During the process, the unknown caller kept contacting the complainant through WhatsApp messages and a VPN number, directing him to different places around Bachra Pondi and insisting that the money be kept hidden near a Mahua tree on the Bachra-Baima road. After the complainant left the money at the said place, one person came there to collect it and was immediately surrounded and apprehended by the police. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Arjun Sahu, aged about 23 years, resident of Amhar, Police Station Patna, who allegedly confessed that he along with his associate Manoj Sahu, aged about 24 years, resident of Targawan, Police Station Patna, had committed the act of threatening and blackmailing the complainant for extorting Rs. 2,50,000/-, while Manoj Sahu managed to flee from the spot. Hence, the present bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and 3 the entire prosecution story appears to be fabricated without any cogent or reliable evidence. It is further submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and no mobile phone, electronic device or any other material has been seized which could connect the applicant with the alleged WhatsApp call, video clip or VPN number. He further submits that the alleged video clip, which forms the basis of the prosecution story, has not been produced before the Court and as per the prosecution itself the video was deleted immediately after viewing and was never preserved, thereby rendering the most crucial piece of evidence absent and making the prosecution story doubtful and unverifiable. It is also submitted that there is no forensic report, CDR analysis, IP data or any technical evidence to establish that the alleged mobile number or VPN number was operated by the applicant. He further contends that no actual money transaction has taken place and the applicant has not derived any wrongful gain of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is also submitted that the alleged confession of the co-accused before the police has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law except to the limited extent of recovery and cannot be used as substantive evidence against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has not been identified through any legally admissible Test Identification Parade and mere apprehension at the spot does not conclusively establish the guilt of the applicant, particularly when the alleged offence is stated to have been committed through electronic communication. He further submits that the applicant has only one criminal 4 antecedent under the NDPS Act which is pending, the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 22.12.2025, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of threatening and blackmailing the complainant for the purpose of extorting Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is submitted that the applicant, along with the co-accused, made WhatsApp calls to the complainant and sent a video clip threatening to make it viral on social media unless the demanded amount was paid. It is further submitted that acting upon the instructions given through WhatsApp and VPN number, the complainant kept the money at the place directed by the accused near a Mahua tree on the Bachra-Baima road, where the applicant came to collect the money and was apprehended by the police on the spot. It is also submitted that during inquiry the applicant disclosed the involvement of his associate Manoj Sahu who managed to flee from the spot, and therefore considering the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the role attributed to the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the allegations against the applicant are that the 5 applicant is involved in the alleged offence of threatening and blackmailing the complainant for the purpose of extorting Rs. 2,50,000/-, but it is to be noted that the applicant is in jail since 22.12.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, he has one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act which is of the year 2021 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant -
Arjun Sahu, involved in Crime No. 412/2025 registered at Police Station- Baikunthpur District- Korea, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum 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 6 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 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. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan