Dismissed

Kisan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2024MCRC/544/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected two joint bail applications filed by Kisan Kumar and Neeraj Kumar. They were arrested for cheating, fraud, and IT offences involving cyber harassment and financial theft. The court denied bail due to the organized nature of the crime and the absconding of a key accused.

What did the court decide?

Both bail applications filed under Section 439 CrPC were rejected.

Kisan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 544 of 2024

¶4

Kisan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar S/o Rajender Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 182, Lane No. 2, Vallabgarh, Out Post Agrasen Chowk, Vallabgarh, District Faridabad (Haryana)

¶5

------Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)

¶8

------- Non-applicant

¶9

WITH

¶10

MCRC No. 379 of 2024

¶11

Neeraj Kumar S/o Late Kallu Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Panchsheel Enclave Police Station Laal Kunwa, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh, Presently Residing At House No. 182 Gali No. 02, Ballabhgarh Police Station Agrasen Chowk, Ballabhgarh, District - Faridabad (Haryana)

¶12

------Applicant

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)

¶15

-------Non-applicant

¶16

For Applicant (MCRC 544/2024) : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Applicant (MCRC 379/2024) : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate and Ms. Riya Soni, Advocate (through V.C.) For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD

¶18

08/02/2024

¶19

As both the bail applications are arising out of same crime number therefore they being heard and decided together.

¶20

Applicants have filed these first bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 168/2023, registered at Police Station – Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 420, 388 of IPC and Section 66 (c) of the

¶21

¶22

Information Technology Act.

¶23

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant has lodged written report to the SHO of police station Kotwali Baikunthpur, District Koriya mentioning therein that on 21.05.2023 he received one video call on Whatsapp mobile application registered with SIM number 9977677183 to which he picked it up assuming that video call is of his relative. As soon as he picked up the incoming video call, on the mobile he saw one naked girl, upon which he immediately switch off his phone and deleted the call. After some time, the said girl has sent one photograph of screen shot on his mobile and demanded ₹ 50,000/- and thereafter he deleted all the chats. On 22.05.2023, he again received a call from mobile number 9589904394 threatening him to get the photo deleted from Whatapp or else his photo would be uploaded on YouTube social media platform and further provided one another mobile number to talk in this regard and gave mobile number 8962046734 of one Devendra Kumar. When he talked to Devendra Kumar, he demanded ₹ 23,000/for deleting the photograph which was deposited by complainant in YES Bank Account No. 101398700012301 and ₹ 85,000/- in SBI Bank account No. 41847400160 in the name of Kishan Kumar @ Krishan Kumar and similarly deposited further amount on different dates in different account numbers. He was also threatened that the girl with whom he chatted has jumped from the roof and the cost of medical expenses is ₹ 2.50 Lakhs. Accordingly, under threat he deposited a total sum of ₹ 31,24,514/-. Based on the report, F.I.R. was registered and during investigation applicants were arrested.

¶24

Learned counsel for applicant – Neeraj Kumar submits that applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. After arrest and conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet has been filed and in the entire charge-sheet there is no material against applicant to connect him in the instant crime. There is no seizure from the applicant

¶25

¶26

of any incriminating articles or the passbook or account number(s), only one mobile phone which is being used by applicant has been seized from his possession and ₹ 1,000/- cash. Applicant is in jail since 20.08.2023 and hence he may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶27

Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for applicant – Kisan Kumar @ Krishana Kumar also submits that there is no direct connection of the applicant in the instant crime. In the memorandum statement, applicant has very fairly and correctly stated that it is the co-accused Neeraj Kumar who is his relative contacted him informing that one of his known person resident of Mewat used to pay ₹ 4,000/- if the Bank account is provided to him for his use, and on that basis he got open the Bank account and permitted its operation to one Maksood @ Makku. The said account was linked with the mobile number 9366304350 provided by Maksood @ Makku. It is further argued that upon handing over the Bank account, Maksood handed over some money to co-accused Neeraj and from the said money Neeraj handed over him ₹ 4,000/-. When he received ATM card it was handed over to Maksood through Neeraj. Except this, there is no other involvement of applicant in commission of aforementioned crime.

¶28

Learned counsel for State opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicants and would submit that it is an organized online crime, the crime of like nature is increased and it is committed by the group/ chain of people. Only two persons are arrested and Maksood @ Makku, resident of Mewat, is still absconding. He contended that in the memorandum statement Kisan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar has admitted that co-accused Neeraj Kumar approached him projecting Maksood for opening bank account. Kisan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar opened the account in which money was deposited. Copy of the bank statement is seized. He also submits that in the memorandum statement, applicant Neeraj Kumar also admitted his guilt.

¶29

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, manner in which the offence is committed in organized manner as also considering high rise in the offence of like nature and the main accused as projected is still absconding, I do not find present to be fit cases to allow them.

¶32

Accordingly, both the bail applications filed under Section 439 of CrPC are rejected .

¶33

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶34

/pawan

Kisan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisan Kumar @ Krishna Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj @ Rahul Malar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Takendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dakeshwar Sinha @ Hariom Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhanendra Navrang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uday Bariha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vrindavan Sona Vs State of Chhattisgarh