Mukesh Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1696-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 5 of 2025

¶5

Mukesh Kumar Thakur S/o Nand Keshwar Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Dandgaon P.S. Udaipur District - Surguaj (C.G.) Presently R/o Qr. No. 78-80/ 2/ 2a Balco Nagar Korba District - Korba (C.G.) (Complainant)

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Department of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Atal Nagar New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Director General of Police Police Headquarters Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Superintendent of Police Surguja District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

4 - The Station House Officer Police Station Udaipur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶12

5 - Kishor Sharma @ Pappu S/o Sukhdev Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o Ramnagar P.S. Bermu District - Bokaro Jharkhand (Accused)

¶13

6 - Neeraj Kumar @ Bablu S/o Sukhev Sharma Aged About 44 Years R/o Ramnagar P.S. Bermu District - Bokaro Jharkhand

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶16

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.13 17:20:29 +0530

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, in person For Respondent : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate

¶18

Nos.1 to 4 / State

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

10.01.2025

¶23

1. The petitioner in person has appeared and states that he has filed

¶24

an application for withdrawal of the power of his counsel,

¶25

2

¶26

Mr.Manoj Kumar Jaiswal from the present case and further permitting him to argue the matter in person. Hence, the Court proceeds to hear the matter.

¶27

2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, petitioner in person as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶28

3. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs :-

¶29

“(i) That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record pertaining to the case of the alleged offences, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued strictly direction to the respondent no. 1 to 4 to do enquire the matter and to take appropriate action against main accused / respondent no. 5 upon complaint of the petitioner, for misleading and personating, in the interest of justice.

¶30

(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶31

4. Grievance of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner/ complainant has made complaint to the concerned police authorities alleging that on account of incident occurred with the father of the petitioner, namely, Nand Keshwar Thakur, the petitioner lodged a written complaint and on the basis of the same, the Police Station Udaipur registered FIR No. 101/2018

¶32

3

¶33

dated 26.10.2018 for the offence under section 294, 506, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused namely, Sudama Sharma, Sushil Sharma, Pappu Sharma and others, however during the filing the charge sheet, the offence under section 147, 148, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code have been added and subsequently submitted the charge sheet before the learned competent Court against the accused namely Sudama Sharma, Sushil Kumar, Neeraj Kumar @ Pappu, Vivek Kumar and Balram Thakur on dated 31.10.2019. In the meanwhile the accused persons obtained the bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. from the competent Court vide order dated 16.10.2019 and submitted the bail bonds after formal arrest before the concerned authority on 31.10.2019, which is part of challan. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that bail bonds in respect of accused Pappu Sharma (whose actual name is Kishore Sharma @ Pappu), one Neeraj Sharma @ Pappu, submitted the bail bonds by impersonating him as Kishore Sharma @ Pappu and when the petitioner gone through challan and other documents, he came to known that in the bail bonds in place of photo of Kishore Sharma @ Pappu the photo of Neeraj Kumar @ Bablu has been affixed. In fact, the actual Kishore Sharma @ Pappu against whom the petitioner lodged report and challan filed has never appeared before the authority for submitting the bail bonds after formal arrest. Likewise, in place of accused Sudama Sharma, son of late Ram Pati also one other person appeared and submitted the bail

¶34

4

¶35

bond by impersonating him as Sudama Sharma. In fact on 31.10.2019, the accused Sudama Sharma not appeared before the authorities of PS Udailpur, District Surguja, whereas on the said particular date he was discharging his duties in the Colliery situated at Central Coalfield Limited Kargali OCP, PO Bermo District Bokaro (Jharkhand), which is at a distance of about 450 kms., which fact is also apparent from the attendance sheet of the said colliery, copy of which has been obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act. Copy of adhar card of Kishore Sharma @ Pappu) and Neeraj Sharma @ Pappu are filed herewith collectively as Annexure P-3.

¶36

5. Thereafter by mentioning all the details, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 05.03.2021 before the respondent No. 4 and requested for taking appropriate action. In the meanwhile a departmental enquiry has been contemplated against the Manoj Kumar Prajapati (IO of the case at hand) and found charges proved against him and imposed the punishment of stoppages of one annual increment without cumulative affect by order dated 10.03.2021, copy of which has been provided to the petitioner under the RTI Act vide its letter dated 18.06.2021.

¶37

6. When no action has been taken by the authorities against the real culprits accused /respondent No.6, the petitioner submitted complaints before the concerned police authorities on dated 05.07.2019, and 16.04.2021 but till date no action has been taken by the said authorities. Hence the petitioner constituted WP (Cr)

¶38

5

¶39

No. 598/2021 wherein this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance vide its order dated 06.07.2023 and moreover the petitioner has submitted representation in pursuant of said order dated 06.07.2023, but no action has been taken upon the grievance of the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner constituted Сг.М.Р. 2106/2023 wherein this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance vide its order dated 20.06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has made complaint before the respondent authorities against the respondent no.5, but no action has been taken by him upon the complaint of the petitioner till date. Hence this writ petition.

¶40

7. Petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that the arrest/court surrender memo dated 26.10.2019 issued by police authorities/respondent No. 2 is illegal, erroneous, discriminatory and contrary to the law as one Neeraj Sharma @ Pappu submitted the bail bonds by impersonating him as respondent No.5, namely, Kishore Sharma @ Pappu and in bail bonds in place of photo of Kishore Sharma @ Pappu, the photo of respondent No.6, namely, Neeraj Kumar @ Bablu has been affixed. In fact, the actual Kishore Sharma @ Pappu against whom the petitioner lodged report and challan filed has never appeared before the authority for submitting the bail bonds after formal arrest. He further submitted that he has made many

¶41

6

¶42

complaint to the concerned respondent authorities against changing of the witnesses, evidence and statement and hence for seeking to do enquire for same from CID, but the respondent authorities had not taken any action upon the said complaint till today. He also submitted that from the treatment document annexed in the petition, it is clear that the private respondent No.5 have committed alleged offence against the petitioner, but till today, the respondents authorities had not lodged the report against the private respondent No.5.

¶43

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶44

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶45

10. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition, being WPCR No. 598 of 2021 against the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 herein seeking similar reliefs, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023, leaving it open to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed another petition, being CRMP No. 2106 of 2023 against coaccused persons and the said petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20.06.2024 and in the said order the issue of cancellation of anticipatory bail has already been considered in the light of Judgment passed by

¶46

7

¶47

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Abdul Basit Vs. Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhury reported in (2015) 1 SCC 257 wherein it has been held that even if the accused persons misrepresented the fact for obtaining the order of bail, the High Court should not have entertained the prayer for cancellation of bail by making reviewing earlier order of grant of bail.

¶48

11. So far as the grievance of the petitioner that one Neeraj Sharma @ Pappu had submitted the bail bonds by impersonating him as Kishore Sharma @ Pappu and in the bail bonds in place of photo of Kishore Sharma @ Pappu the photo of Neeraj Kumar @ Bablu has been affixed is concerned, the same can be agitated before the competent Court where the bail bonds were furnished by the accused persons and it is for the Court concerned to decide the same and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the grievance of the petitioner, at this stage, accordingly the instant petition is dismissed leaving it open to the the petitioner to agitate the aforesaid grievance before the competent Court, if so aggrieved.

¶49

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶50

Chandra

Mukesh Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Boga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S S Multi Services Proprietor Vs Union of India

Firdos Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dulesh Mrig Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Malti Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. Abhiram Marketing Services Limited Vs Union of India