SURENDRA KUMAR BERMAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010315132026 2026:CGHC:38312
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7957 of 2026
Surendra Kumar Berman S/o Ratan Lal Berman, Aged About 28 Years R/o
Dhangaon, P. S. And Tahsil Mulmula District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station –
Mulmula, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
31.08.2026
Digitally signed
by
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 304/2025, registered at Police Station –
Mulmula, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC, Section 66(C) of the IT Act, and Section
42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, is that an offence was registered against
the applicant was registered before the Police Station concerned,
alleging that the applicant along with co-accused persons namely his
wife Neha Barman and one Rakesh Kumar Pandey, in furtherance of
their common intention, allegedly obtained Point of Sale(POS) codes
on different mobile numbers, and it is alleged that the applicant and co-
accused, by using the said POS codes, activated a total of 27 SIM

2
Cards without the knowledge and consent of the customers, by utilizing
their identity documents, Aadhaar Card Copies, and photographs, with
an intention to derive unlawful gain. Hence, this application.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further
submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The
applicant is in jail since 12.11.2025 and trial is likely to take some time
for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this
case. It is further submitted that the applicant along with co-accused
persons namely his wife Neha Barman and one Rakesh Kumar
Pandey, in furtherance of their common intention, allegedly obtained
Point of Sale(POS) codes on different mobile numbers, and the
applicant and co-accused, by using the said POS codes, activated a
total of 27 SIM Cards without the knowledge and consent of the
customers, by utilizing their identity documents, Aadhaar Card Copies,
and photographs, with an intention to derive unlawful gain. It is further
submitted that the bail application of the co-accused has already been
rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in MCRC
No.2525/2026, and there are a total of 4 criminal antecedents of the
applicant of similar nature and all are still pending, therefore, he is not
entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.

3
6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of
the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the
applicant along with co-accused persons namely his wife Neha
Barman and one Rakesh Kumar Pandey, in furtherance of their
common intention, allegedly obtained Point of Sale(POS) codes on
different mobile numbers, and the applicant and co-accused, by using
the said POS codes, activated a total of 27 SIM Cards without the
knowledge and consent of the customers, by utilizing their identity
documents, Aadhaar Card Copies, and photographs, with an intention
to derive unlawful gain, moreover, the bail application of the co-
accused has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated
18.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.2525/2026, and there are a total of 4
criminal antecedents of the applicant of similar nature and all are still
pending, and no plausible explanation has been given for the same,
which shows that applicant is a habitual offender and he has misused
the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Another , reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559 , wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused
therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this
Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on
regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- Surendra Kumar
Berman, involved in Crime No. 304/2025, registered at Police Station
– Mulmula, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC, Section 66(C) of the IT Act, and Section
42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act, is rejected .

4
8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed
with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rajshekhar