Ku. Varsha Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3583 of 2021 • Ku. Varsha Tiwari d/o. Vipin Tiwari aged about 27 years r/o. B-34, 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. Rakesh Sao, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 25-06-2021

1. The applicant has preferred the second 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. The first bail application was rejected on 17-5-2021.

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. The case of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Paramveer Singh Marhas, who has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 21-5-2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3014 of 2021, therefore she may be released on bail on the same ground.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. However, he does not dispute the fact that coaccused Paramvir Singh Marhas has been granted bail by co-

ordinate Bench of this court.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, charge sheet has been filed, recovery has been made, the applicant is in jail since 4-2-2021, offence is triable by Judicial Judicial First Class and further considering the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this court, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of R.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court for her appearance as and when directed.

Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Vacation Judge Raju