Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Patna High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Making Fake Calls In Police Superintendent's Name To Coerce Land & Money Transactions

Brij Nandan
19 May 2022 12:25 PM GMT
Case Of Making Fake Calls In The Name Of superintendent Of Police, Putting Pressure On Land And Money Transactions: Patna High Court Grants Bail To Accused Man
x

Image By: Siddharth Anand

The Patna High Court has granted bail to a man accused in the case of making fake calls in the name of Superintendent of Police for pressurizing the complainant into land and money transactions.

A single bench of Justice Rajiv Ranjan Prasad directed,

"The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner."

In the present case, the petitioner Mohammad Imran was booked under sections 419, 420, 385, 387, 120(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 66(c)/67 of the IT Act.

Before the court, Advocate Lal Babu Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is suffering from prolongation of latency in both eyes sugg of demyelinating optic neuropath from his childhood and now it has caused blindness in both eyes.Therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail.

The petitioner, claiming to have no criminal antecedents, was said to be in custody since November 1, 2021.

As per the prosecution, one call was made to the complainant Dinesh Prasad from a mobile number and the caller identified himself as Superintendent of Police, Motihari. The caller impressed upon the said complainant Dinesh Prasad to resolve the dispute going on with Kapildev Sarraf on account of the land and money transaction.

It is alleged that a forged true caller ID was made in the name of Superintendent of Police and from the said ID the call was made. The owner of the mobile has been identified as one Ram Prasad and in course of investigation, it came that the local MLA of Raxaul had been regularly talking to Sub-Inspector of Police Sanjay Kumar Singh and he was also called at his residence where the Sub-Inspector of Police found that Dinesh Mahaseth, Madhu Yadav and Kapildev Sarraf were sitting and a panchayati was taking place as regards the land and money transactions.

It is further alleged that on inquiry made to technical cell about IMEI number of the mobile, it was found that the owner of that IMEI number mobile is one Ritesh Singh and when raid was conducted at this house Ram Prasad was also found present.

It is then alleged that in course of investigation, Ram Prasad disclosed that one Dr. Ganga Kumar son of Yogi Yadav had made the call from the said mobile to Dinesh Mahaseth but later on the co-accused Ritesh Singh disclosed that it was this petitioner who had talked on the mobile.

Counsel submitted that it is apparent from the FIR that the prosecution story is totally inconsistent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 6 months, investigation against him is complete and his presence may also be secured in course of trial.

APP Akhileshwar Dayal, appearing for the state, has opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail.

Considering the aforesaid submissions and the apparent inconsistency at this stage when the petitioner has already remained in jail for over 6 months, he has no criminal antecedents and his presence may also be secured in course of trial, the Court directed his release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C.

The court further ordered that the trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.

Case Title: Mohammad Imran Vs State of Bihar

Coram: Justice Rajiv Ranjan Prasad

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Next Story