Shyamlal Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 84 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Frezerpur (Parpa), District – Bastar (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 115 (2), 127 (2), 351 (2), 49, 64 (1), 64 (2) M of BNS, 2023.

¶15

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.04.2026, the complainant/victim lodged a written report at the concerned Police Station stating that she was working as a receptionist-cum-

¶16

2

¶17

attendant in Hotel Anurag Residency, owned by the co-accused Pankaj Sharma. It was alleged that, for the last one year, the coaccused had found that amounts which were required to be deposited in the account of the hotel had instead been utilized by the complainant for her personal use. Thereafter, the co-accused Pankaj Sharma allegedly started interrogating her and pressurizing her to return the said amount. It was further alleged that she was locked in a room and subjected to torture. The coaccused, along with another friend, took her in his Thar fourwheeler from District Dantewada to Jagdalpur, where she was again pressurized to return the amount. It is further alleged that her family members were called to Surya Hotel at Jagdalpur and, upon noticing the arrival of a police vehicle, the co-accused and his companion left her near Surya Hotel in the company of her brother. Thereafter, on 18.04.2026, it is alleged that the coaccused Pankaj Sharma, along with the Manager namely Shyam, came to her house and, after threatening her brother, took her in a four-wheeler vehicle to Dantewada, where the co-accused Pankaj Sharma committed sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged that she was thereafter taken back to the hotel and confined in a room, where the co-accused again committed sexual intercourse with her. Based on the said report, the crime was registered. The applicant is apprehending his arrest.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in crime. She submits that according to the allegations, applicant was driver of the co-accused (main accused) Pankaj Sharma. All the allegations of committing offence

¶19

3

¶20

is against the co-accused Pankaj Sharma who has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.A. No. 801/2026 vide order dated 21.05.2026.

¶21

Learned counsel for State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. However, she does not dispute the submission of the counsel for applicant that the main accused is the co-accused Pankaj Sharma who has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

While considering the bail application in M.Cr.C.A. No. 801/2026 ‘Pankaj Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, this Court has observed thus:-

¶24

‘6. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed the statement of account of the complainant maintained with the State Bank of India in order to demonstrate that the complainant had deposited online amounts in her own account, which were required to be deposited in the account of the hotel. It is submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that a total sum of Rs.3,70,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant from the account of the hotel and deposited in her bank account.

¶25

Perusal of the impugned order would further reveal that it has also been mentioned in the complaint that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.1.50 lakh with the consent of the applicant, who is the owner of the hotel.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, and further taking note of the admission made by the complainant that she had spent an amount of Rs.1.50 lakh on herself, allegedly with the consent of the applicant, who is the owner of the hotel, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I

¶27

4

¶28

am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.’

¶29

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties as also, the fact that the co-accused (main accused) namely, Pankaj Sharma has been enlarged on bail in M.Cr.C.A. No. 801/2026 vide order dated 21.05.2026, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶30

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :-

¶31

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶32

(ii) the applicant 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶33

Certified copy as per rules.

¶34

Sd/----/-/-/-/---/-/-

¶35

Digitally
SHUBHAM signed by
DEY SHUBHAM
DEY

¶36

Dey

Shyamlal Diwan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamlal Diwan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Singhal Renewable Energy Private Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Sponge and Power Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kusum Bafna Vs Government of India

Ritesh Singh Vs Vikram Singh

Manoj Singh Vs Vikram Singh

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission