High CourtsSingle Bench

Krishna Kumar Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 20 June 2023 · Citation: (2023) 06 CHH CK 0027

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66D
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2214 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 361 words
1.

Heard.

2.

This is an application filed under 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.12/2023 registered at Police Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur (CG) for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

3.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Vidhyacharan Paikra, School Teacher, Government High School, Lamdand, lodged an FIR at Police Station Farsabhar on 1.3.2023 alleging that he received a friend request from one girl namely Savita Paikra in the month of November 2021 and thereafter, money was demanded from time to time by the said girl. The applicant, in total, paid an amount of Rs.5,26,500/- to Savita Paikra. Later on, it was revealed that the present applicant made fake ID in the name of Savita Paikra and took money from the complainant. Based on such allegation, the aforesaid offence has been registered.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is a Government Servant working as a Peon in the Middle School, Mendarbahar. The applicant has not made any fake ID. He would further submit that there is a financial dispute between the present applicant and the complainant. The applicant is in jail since 1.3.2023. Hence, considering all these aspects, learned counsel for the applicant prays for releasing the applicant on bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

6.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering the nature of accusation and also considering the pre-trial detention of the applicant, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail.

7.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court.

8.

Certified copy as per rules.