Ku Varsha Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1546 of 2021 • Ku. Varsha Tiwari d/o. Vipin Tiwari aged about 27 years r/o. B-24, Nature City Colony, Bilaspur, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (CG). ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli(CG).

---- Non-applicant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Lalit Jangde, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 17-05-2021

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail as she is in jail since 4-2-2021 in connection with Crime No. 48 of 2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 386, 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant namely C.R. Netam who is working as Forest Range Officer, Mungeli has lodged report in Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli stating that the applicant along with one person namely Paramveer Singh Marhas who is the editor of 24 News Wab Portal extorted money from the complainant to the tune of

Rs.1,00,000,00/- on various occasions by putting the complainant in fear of opening of an inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation for offence of corruption committed by the complainant. It was further alleged that the applicant impersonated herself as she is from Mantralaya and there is a complaint against the complainant and to settle the complaint she extorted Rs.1 crore from the complainant, thereby the aforesaid offence has been committed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no specific allegation against the present applicant and there is no previous criminal antecedent against her. He would further submit that the applicant is a permanent resident of address given in the cause title and there is no chance of her absconding and tempering with witnesses of the case. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 4-2-2021 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore she may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and would submit that there is sufficient material which shows clear involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the gravity of the offence has been committed,

considering material facts present in the case diary, the complaint and statement of C.R. Netam who has alleged involvement of the present applicant Varsha Tiwari, prima facie, establishes the involvement of the applicant, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the instant bail petition filed by the applicant is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Vacation Judge Raju