Rahul Nath Tiwari S/o Markandey Tiwari Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 35 v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through, S.H.O. Durg Kotwali, District Durg
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25448 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3925 of 2025 Rahul Nath Tiwari S/o Markandey Tiwari Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 35, Manjhi Chowk, Labour Colony, Sector 11, Khursipar Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN --- Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, S.H.O. Durg Kotwali, District Durg, (C.G.) (As Per Charge Sheet) --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 4042 of 2025 Karan Banjare S/o Rohit Banjare Aged About 24 Years R/o M.I.G. 240, S.T.F. Colony, Baghera, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant in MCRC No.3925/2025 For Applicant in MCRC No.4042/2025 For Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18/06/2025 1. Since the above-mentioned two bail applications arise out of same crime number, they are clubbed and heard together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 2. These are 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 111/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420. 467. 468, 120-B of the IPC and Section 66(C) & 43(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Hemant Shrivastava lodged report at Police Station, City Kotwali, Durg to the effect that in the month of June, 2024, he purchased Jio SIM from the present applicant in Rs. 30/- and while completing process for issuance of SIM, the applicant has taken thrice live photo and biometric thumb of the applicant and given SIM No. 62689xxx. Later on through Cyber Police, Durg, the complainant came to know that two other SIM Nos. 89620xxx & 89820xxx have also been issued in the name of complainant, without any knowledge of the complainant and both the SIMs have been given to the other persons. On the basis of said report, the alleged offences have been registered against the applicants, subsequently, they were arrested. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have 3 not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. They further submits that nothing has been seized from applicant, Rahul Nath Tiwari so far as seizure from Karan Banjare is concerned, one mobile and one SIM has been seized from his possession. They also submits that the SIMs in question were never used for committing any criminal act. The applicants are in jail since 12.03.2025, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, they prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that applicants are alleged to have issued two SIMs in the name of complainant by using his personal identity, such as photos or thumb biometric and thereby committed the said crime, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 12.03.2025, the fact that though the applicants are alleged to have issued two SIMs in the name of complainant by using his personal identity, such as photos or thumb biometric, but the SIMs in question were never used in committing any criminal act, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicants is concerned, applicants 4 have no criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicants - Rahul Nath Tiwari and Karan Banjare, involved in Crime No. 111/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420. 467. 468, 120-B of the IPC and Section 66(C) & 43(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iv) The applicants 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Akhil Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE