1 2025:CGHC:46596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1341 of 2025 Shubham Nirmalkar S/o Santram Nirmalkar Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Polsaipara Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 11/09/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.128/2025 registered at Police Station Utai, District GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.09.12 18:42:20 +0530 2 Durg, CG. (wrongly mentioned as City Kotwali in the impugned order it is PS Utai) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 511 of IPC (As per the FIR) and section 420, 419, of IPC and section 42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act (As per trial court order). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant on 09/04/2025 has lodged a written complaint against the present applicant alleging that the applicant has without the permission of the complainant has issued a SIM in the name of the complainant by giving the reason that the process has not been completed took the thumb impression, and photo of the complainant twice on 11/06/2024 and have sold the SIM no. 6232331824 to someone else. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the FIR is based on a presumption that the applicant sold the SIM card, as the complainant purchased a SIM from the applicant in 2024 and lodged the FIR after 1 year and the complainant's grievance is about another number issued in his name. He would submit that complaint was lodged after the complainant received a call about another SIM in his name, and he assumed the applicant was involved and the applicant is being falsely implicated, as evidenced by two FIRs lodged on the same day on 09/04/2025 for similar allegations, one after 1 year and 3 another after 3 years of SIM purchase. He would further submit that custodial interrogation is unwarranted, as material documents can be verified by investigating authorities, therefore he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and he would submit that one SIM in the name of the complainant was found to be used in Delhi. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant that applicant has without the permission of the complainant has issued a SIM in the name of the complainant by giving the reason that the process has not been completed took the thumb impression, and photo of the complainant twice on 11/06/2024 and have sold the SIM no. 6232331824 to someone else, further the fact that one SIM in the name of the complainant was found to be used in Delhi and considering the fact that investigation is still going on, therefore I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Shubham Nirmalkar, involved in Crime No.128/2025 registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg, CG. (wrongly mentioned as 4 City Kotwali in the impugned order it is PS Utai) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 511 of IPC (As per the FIR) and section 420, 419 of IPC and section 42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act (As per trial court order), is rejected. Sd/-Sd S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri