- (1.) HEARD counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) PETITIONER is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case in brief is that on 22.03.2011, the informant received threatening call from mobile no. 9454993870 through which the caller has stated his identity as Sonu and demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ as 'Rangdari' thereafter, on 23.03.2011, the said person again called him through the aforesaid mobile and also to the brother of the informant, the caller has also threatened to kidnap the son of the informant if the demanded amount is not given. On this threatening, the informant lodged the instant F.I.R. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the contents of the F.I.R. clearly shows that the aforesaid F.I.R. is lodged against Sonu mobile no. 9454993870, but neither the parentage of the said Sonu is given in the F.I.R. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. only because the name of the accused mentioned in the said F.I.R. is Sonu which is the name of the petitioner also. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case only due to enemity and political rivalry between the parties. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an employee of Indian Armed Forces. It is also submitted that even in the investigation it has come at Para 34 of the case diary that though SIM of mobile no. 9454993870 (mobile no. in question) is issued on 19.06.2010 and activated on 29.09.2010 but in the investigation it could not be located who is owner/holder of said SIM card. It has further come at Para 56 of the case diary that the mobile no. of Sonu Kumar, the present petitioner is 9728809638 and the said Sonu Kumar is an employee of Indian Armed Forces and he has been alloted Army No. 15346868K and presently posted at Ambala Cantonment. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in the investigation witnesses have supported the case and stated that the said SIM card belongs to Sonu. It is also contended that it has come in the case diary at Para 23 that on 22.03.2011 and 23.03.2011 that phone call was made from the aforesaid mobile no. 9454993870 to mobile nos. 8651130844 & 07808457606. It is further submitted that the said mobile set has been recovered from the cattle house of the petitioner. But he has not denied the fact that the name of the holder/owner of the SIM No. 9454993870 has not been yet traced out.
(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by both the parties and considering the materials which has come in the investigation which shows that the name of the owner/holder of the aforesaid mobile no. 9454993870 could not be traced out and mobile number of Sonu Kumar (the present petitioner) is different from aforesaid mobile no. 9454993870 and further there is no specific material against him regarding his involvement in this case, I direct the petitioner namely Sonu @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav to surrender in the trial Court/Court below within a period of one month from the date of this order and if he surrenders, the trial Court/Court below will release him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 60 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 462 of 2011 with the conditions that one of the bailors will be local resident having immovable property within the jurisdiction of the district concerned and the petitioner will remain present before the trial Court/Court whenever the trial Court/Court requires his presence and further to cooperate in the investigation if it is not completed and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;