Bhupendra Das S/o Ashok Das Mahant Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Purunga P.S v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:47787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6926 of 2025 Bhupendra Das S/o Ashok Das Mahant Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Purunga P.S.- Chhal District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Complete Surname Of Father Not Mentioned In The Order) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) .. Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Peyush Patnaik, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.09.2025 Order on Board 1.
Legal Reasoning
The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 231/2025, registered at Police Station : Balauda District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 66(C) of I.T. Act and Section 42(3) (E) of Telecommunications Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03/06/2025 on the intimation of the cyber cell Janjgir-Champa that from 17/06/2024 to 21/06/2024 Ramakrishna Yadav owner of Ram Mobile used to sell 2 mobile phones SIM cards, the co-accused by using the authentication code of by way of one- time password and also using the POS (point of sale) code fraudulently activated about 18 SIMs on the basis of identity such as Aadhar cards submitted by the SIM customers and distributed to other persons with the intention of hiding the identity of the real SIM users without informing the customers and without their permission. When the co-accused was arrested in his memorandum he took the name of the applicant, therefore the offences were registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report (F.I.R.) he is just the employee of the co-accused, the co-accused just to save himself took the name of the applicant that he has activated SIM whereby the OTP was issued from the mobile of the co-accused. He further submits that the prosecution has recorded the statements of the identity holders whose Aadhar was used for activating SIM cards in which they have stated that they have issued or requested for activation of the SIM cards of Airtel company whereby the prosecution has not asked the specific question as to who come the applicant acquired the identify Aadhar of the customers whose SIM has been activated. He also submits that the trial Court rejected the bail of the applicant on the ground that there may be a presumption that the applicant is planning some criminal activates by activating SIMS whereby no such criminal activity has been performed by the applicant and neither he has 3 activated SIM on his own but only on the request of the customers and the applicant is in jail since 27.07.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent and as such looking to the seriousness of this case, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. On 01.09.2025, this Court had directed the Investigating Officer to file an affidavit disclosing the evidence collected against the applicant pursuant to which, the IO has filed a detailed affidavit disclosing involvement of the applicant herein. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:- (i) It is respectfully submitted that, on 03.06.2025, Constable No. 232 Mohd. Shahbai Ahmed S/o. Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed, age 31 years, posted at Cyber Cell Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, submitted a written complaint dated 03/06/2025 to the Police Station Baloda District Janjgir Champa wherein it is stated that the accused/Ramkrishna Yadav has fraudulently activated mobile SIM in the name of individuals without their notice/knowledge to them by using their personal documents has committed a crime and thus the accused Ramkrishna Yadav holder of Mobile No. 8071239287 and was found to be an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act. On the basis of the above, fake SIM cards are being allotted under the police station area through Point of Sale (POS) Code RAM MOBILE Mobile No. 4 8871239257, Budgahan, Ward No.7, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh and it is being used in other crimes. As per the information received and the attached list, the mobile numbers allotted through Point of Sale (POS) code 8871239287 RAM MOBILE are Mobile Nos.910232214376, 916232221135, 91623223057, 916232230573, 916232238943, 916232334543, 916232334746, 916232335776, 916232338568, 916232339743, 916232342443, 916232347446, 916232347643, 916232348076, 916232906446, 917470797246, 918962966866, 918982584646, 918982851610, On receiving information about fraudulent issuance of total 18 mobile SIM numbers, initially 01. Mobile number 917470797246 Registered Customer Veer Singh S/o. Ran Singh 17 years, Village Mukund, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh 02. The registered customer of mobile number 916232347643, Dhivadhatra Kumar @ Devendra Kumar S/o. Sudhi Ram, 23 years R/o. Village Mukund, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. of customer 03. The name. mobile number registered 916232334740, Sandeep Kumar S/o. Bilar Singh, 24 years R/o. Village Munud, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh was questioned. The said witnesses told that they have neither purchased the said SIM nor they are using the said SIM, but the same has been fraudulently issued in their Thereafter, CAFE certificate of all the said mobile numbers were obtained from Airtel Company. On observing the point of sale in the received CAFE, it was found that the POS Code 6871239287 was issued from RAM MOBILE Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 495559. The operator of the said point of sale (POS) Code 8871239287 RAM MOBILE Address was Ram Krishna Yadav S/o. Mujbal Ram Yadav R/o. Pannora Para Budgahan, Police Station Baloda. The above mentioned forged 18 SIM cards were issued by using the copy of identity card and photographs of various 5 individuals without their notice/knowledge fraudulently for obtaining the wrongful benefits. (ii) On the basis of information received in respect to Point of Sale (POS) code 8871239287 Ram Mobile Address operator namely Ram Krishna Yadav was found to have fraudulently issued additional SIM cards for obtaining wrongful benefits. crime number Hence, 231/2025 punishable under section 420 IPC, section 66 (C) IT Act was registered and investigation was carried out. (iii) During investigation co-accused Ram Krishna Yadav Point of Sale (POS) code 8871239287 RAM MOBILE was taken into police custody and after questioning, a memorandum statement was taken, which stated that in the year 2023, he opened a mobile shop in name of Ram Mobile. POS code number 8871239287 was allotted to him for providing Airtel mobile SIMs in the mobile shop and for activating SIM numbers. In June 2024, Airtel company Bhupendra Das i.e. the present applicant R/o. Dharamjaigarh, demanded the POS code number operated in his name and told that he has got a target from the company to activate SIM cards. Then he gave him his POS code number. To complete the target, whenever he used to activate the SIM through POS code number, which is allotted in name of co-accused Ramkrsihana Yadav, OTP used to come on his mobile number 8871239287, which he used to tell to the present applicant Bhupendra Das. The present applicant had told him that about 18 SIMs have been activated in the name of the customer without the knowledge of the customer from his POS code number. In this way, present applicant, SIM has been used fraudulently by present applicant. (iv) Thereafter the present applicant has been summoned and questioned and legal action will be taken on the basis of evidence found against him. Accused Ramkrishna Yadav has accepted his crime of committing the incident and Ram Mobile Shop and a Vivo company mobile used in the incident 6 and the fingerprint machine have been seized on presenting them. In the case, the incident was found to have been committed in violation of the rules of telecommunication and therefore of the section 42 (3) (e) Telecommunication Act, 2023 has been included in the case. In the case, sufÏcient evidence was found against the co-accused Ramkrishna Yadav was arrested on 04.06.2025 at 10.30 am and information of which was also given to his family members and thereafter he was sent on judicial remand. (v) However, the present applicant was initially absconding since the date of the incident and during investigation an information has been received in respect to the present applicant and was arrested from his residence. The present applicant was taken into police custody and a memorandum interrogation wherein he has stated that he is working as a SIM agent for Airtel Company since the year 2021 and that he knows Airtel company's retailer Ramkrishna Yadav. He asked for the POS code number operated in the name of Ramkrishna Yadav and told that he has received a target from the company to activate the SIM card. Then co-accused Ramkrishna Yadav gave his POS code number. To complete the target, I used to activate the SIM from the POS code number. Then an OTP used to come on co-accused mobile number 8971239287, which Ramkrishna Yadav used to tell him and he had told Ramkrishna Yadav in respect to activating about 18 SIMs in the name of the customers from his POS code number without the have knowledge/notice of the individuals allotted SIM of Airtel company by going around Village Mukund. In this way, 18 SIMs have been issued by him for fake use and he use to give Rs. 50 per SIM to co- accused Ramkrishna Yadav in lieu of allotment of SIM. A case has been registered against the present applicant in Jutemil Police Station, District Raigarh in connection with issuing fake SIMs and in that case he was on bail. (vi) The mobile from which the applicant issued 18 SIMs is 7 with him of Realme company mobile with Jio company SIM installed, was seized and taken into police custody. In this case, sufÏcient evidencé was found against the accused Bhupendra Das. (vii) It is respectfully submitted that the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant has been verified and during verification it has been surfaced that against the present applicant an FIR has been registered at Crime No. 87/2025 before Police Station Jute Mill District Raigarh (CG) for the offence punishable under sections 318(2), 318(4) of BNS, 2023; section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act in
Legal Reasoning
respect to issuance of forged and fake SIMS. (viii) It is respectfully submitted that after registration of the FIR the information in respect to 18 fake SIMs have been obtained and the Customer Application Form (CAF in short) of the said SIMS were obtained wherein the name of the person in whose favour the said CIM were issued; father's name; full address; DOA; Temporary Address; State; Alternate Number; Connection Type; Point of Sale; mobile number; name of operator (AIRTEL) have been gathered and thereafter the issued mobile numbers were put on tracking with the cyber cell and the CDR/SDR were also sought but as per the CAF the mobile numbers issued in respect to the said SIMs are switched off and as on date no information in respect to which has been issued, however, the Police undertakes that as and when any information in respect to the said mobiles is received from the Cyber Cell the same will be placed before this Hon'ble Court.
Decision
(ix) In view of the above it, is thus clear that there is prima facie cognizable offence made out against the present applicant and therefore the present application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.” 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 8 nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the applicant has not named in the FIR and he is just the employee of the co-accused and the co-accused just to save himself took the name of the present applicant that he has activated SIM and he is in jail since 27.07.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 8. Let applicant, Bhupendra Das, involved in Crime No. 231/2025, registered at Police Station : Balauda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 66(C) of I.T. Act and Section 42(3) (E) of Telecommunications Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial 9 court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice