Aniruddh Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6666 of 2018 • Aniruddh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Gaind Lal Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Ramnagar, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant MCRC No. 7047 of 2018 • Girish Kumar @ Vikky S/o Shri Chhote Lal Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 31, Bada Aima, Khadagpur, P.S.- Khadagpur (Town), District- Modinpur, WestBangal., District : Medinipur, West Bengal ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police StationKabir Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant For Applicants : Shri Sunil Pillai, Shri Vivek Singhal, Advocates For Non-applicant : Shri Neeraj Sharma,Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 31.10.2018

1. Since both the bail applications are arising out of the same Crime No., they are being disposed off by this common order.

2. These are first bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicants before this Court and no other bail application is pending before any other Court.

3. Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with crime No. 13/2018 registered at Police Station - Kabir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 507, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 66D I.T. Act.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that complainant Namrata Tiwari resident of Kabir Nagar, Raipur between 08.01.2018 to 05.02.2018 received one telephonic call. The caller told her that he is a CBI Officer and demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- from her. As per True Caller it was revealed that caller was Girish @Vikky. Applicant Anirudh had told to applicant Girish @Vikky to demand Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant representing himself as CBI Officer.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have no criminal background. They are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, they shall be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications and submits that there is no antecedent against the applicants.

7. One mobile at the instance of the memorandum of the applicant Girish @ Vikky has been seized from him. Copy of the call details of the conversation of the applicant is also filed. Complicity of the applicant Anirudh has been shown in his memorandum.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that there is no likelihood of the accused to abscond and tamper the evidence, the trial will take its own time, this Court is inclined to give benefit of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to the present applicants.

9. Accordingly, the present bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is allowed.

10.It is directed that if each applicant furnishes one solvent surety for a sum of Rs.25,000/- along with a personal bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of

the concerned Trial Court with the condition that they will appear before the Trial Court at 11:00 am as and when directed till trial and they would cooperate during the trial, they shall be released on bail.

11. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) JUDGE kishore