Delhi District Court
State vs Bikul Mandal on 5 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-003486-2017
CIS No. 1658/17
State Vs. Bikul Mandal
FIR No. 189/15
PS. Ranhola
U/s. 386 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 08/09.01.2015 & 01.02.2015
2) The name of the complainant : S. D. Mehta S/o D. D. Mehta
3) The name & parentage of accused : Bikul Mandal S/o Ashid Mandal, R/o Jhuggi no.20, 1 T Huts, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : U/s 386 IPC 5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 6) Final order : Acquitted 7) The date of such order : 05.12.2025 Date of Institution : 15.03.2017 Final Arguments heard on : 21.11.2025 Judgment reserved on : 21.11.2025 Judgment announced on : 05.12.2025 State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 1/10 JUDGMENT 1) The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 08.01.2015,
09.01.2015 & 01.02.2015 at about 5.15 pm within the jurisdiction of PS Mianwali Nagar, at landline number 25276475 of the complainant S D Mehta, accused put complainant in fear of death or of grievous hurt to him and demanded a sum of Rs.80 lakh in order to commit extortion.
2) After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed against accused under Section 386 of IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its version, prosecution has examined ten witnesses.
4) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against him. Accused opted to lead DE and one defence witness was examined.
5) I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
6) The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched upon, in brief, as follows:-
6.1) PW1 Sh. S.D. Mehta deposed that in the year 2015, PW1 was residing at the aforesaid address along with his wife namely Santosh Mehta. It is further stated that on 08.01.2015 at about 11.15 PM one telephonic call was received at his landline no. 25276475 which was picked by his wife whereupon one male said that "Mehta Ji se baat karao" and accordingly PW1 received the call and the said person stated that "meri awaaz sun re h, 80,00,000/- rupees de do" and PW1 replied "paagal ho gaye h kya" and then PW1 cut the call. It is further stated that thereafter, on 09.01.2015 at about 08.15 PM again call was received at the aforesaid landline number and the same was picked by his wife and the same was handed over to PW1 whereupon the person who was calling stated to PW1 in threatening manner that why PW1 cut the call yesterday and again PW1 cut the call. It is further stated that State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 2/10 on the same day, PW1 called at 100 number and inforrnation was given that someone is threatening to PW1. It is further stated that On 10.01.2015 one written complaint was lodged by PW1 to concerned SHO of PS Mianwali Nagar qua extortion but no action was taken by the then SHO and afterwards PW1 sent complaint to several higher authorities of police department and public grievances cell through post and emails. It is further stated that afterwards, probably on 01.02.2015 in evening time at about 05.15 PM call was received on the aforesaid landline number from mobile number bearing last digits 1004 and when PW1 picked the call, again the said person stated to PW1 in threatening manner that "paise de do nahi to theek nahi hoga". It is further stated that thereafter, being aggrieved by the act of police department PW1 filed a complaint before the concerned I.d. Metropolitan Magistrate against the concerned FIR 18545 PS:
Mianwali Nagar. It is further stated that after lodging of his complaint at Public Gries Cell. PW1 was called there along with SHO concerned whereupon on his complaint direction was given to lodge the FIR and accordingly the present case FIR was registered on 16.03.2015. It is further stated that the said complaint is already on record and hereby exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. It is further stated that during the investigation of present case PW1 was called by the police official in the PS Mianwali Nagar where the present accused Bikul Mandal was arrested by the police official.
6.2) PW2 Sh. Rajiv Vashishtha deposed that PW2 have been working in Bharti Airtel Itd since January, 2019. It is further stated that as per record, IO required from their company CDR copies, CAF, Cell ID Chart, Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile nos. (1) 9679861004 in the name of Ms. Shobha Saha and (2) 9560247169 in the name of Sh. Tapan Mandal and which were activated on 10.09.2014 and 04.11.2013 respectively. It is further stated that the aforesaid documents i.e. CAF of customer Shobha Saha and CDR are Ex.PW-2/A (colly) (OSR). It is further stated that the aforesaid documents i.e. CAF of customer Tapan Mandal and CDR are Ex.PW-2/B(Colly)(OSR). It is further stated that the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act of both the mobile phones is State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 3/10 Ex.PW-2/C(colly) (OSR). It is further stated that the same are verified by their company and certificate is under the signatures of Sh. Surender Kumar at point A on all the above said documents. It is further stated that PW2 confirm the authenticity of the aforesaid document issued by their company. PW2 am authorised to depose on behalf of Sh. Surender Kumar. It is further stated that PW2 have worked with Surender Kumar since January, 2019 and PW2 can identify his signatures as PW2 had seen him signing during the course of the his official duty. It is further stated that the said authority letter is Ex.PW-2/D(OSR) and photocopy of the same is taken on record.
6.3) PW3 ASI Narender Kumar deposed that on 09.01.2015, PW3 was posted at PS Mianwali as HC. It is further stated that on that day PW3 was assigned the duty of duty officer from 04.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. It is further stated that on that day, PW3 received a wireless message regarding some unnecessary calls made by some unknown person at H. no. 141, Pocket 5 & 7 on telephone по. 25276475. PW3 reduced the said information into writing vide DD No. 45A and the copy of the same is Ex.PW-3/A (OSR). It is further stated that today PW3 have also brought the daily diary register of PS Mianwali of the year 2015 and the said entry is effected at serial no. 45 of page no. 57 book no. 950. It is further stated that on 16.03.2015 PW3 was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as D.O from 04.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. It is further stated that on that day at about 06.55 pm, SI Umed Singh brought a rukka. It is further stated that on the basis of rukka PW3 registered FIR No. 189/15 computerized copy of which is Ex.PW-3/B. It is further stated that PW3 also made endorsement Ex.PW-3/C on the rukka. It is further stated that after recording the FIR, computerized copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Sl Umed Singh. It is further stated that PW3 also prepared certificate u/s 65 B of IE Act and the copy of the same is Ex.PW-3/D. 6.4) PW4 Ms. Santosh Mehta deposed that PW4 is permanent resident of the above said address. It is further stated that on 08.01.2015, PW4 had received a telephonic call at about 12.00 midnight. It is further stated that the caller started abusing me in filthy language and also raised threats to PW4 of dire consequences State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 4/10 and asked PW4 to give the phone to her husband. It is further stated that PW4 called her husband namely S. D. Mehta who was also available in the above said house and gave him the phone. It is further stated that the caller demanded an amount of Rs. 80 lakhs from her husband. It is further stated that thereafter, her husband put down the phone and they slept. It is further stated that on 09.01.2015, at about 08.25 pm, PW4 again received a telephonic call and the caller asked PW4 as to why they had disconnected the call and PW4 did not give any reply for the same. It is further stated that PW4 apprised her husband about the same and on which her husband gave a complaint to the PS. It is further stated that on 01.02.2015 at about 05.15 pm, PW4 again received a call and the caller again abused PW4 in filthy language. It is further stated that her husband had installed a caller ID at their house and thereafter they avoided the calls from the said number / caller.
6.5) PW5 HC Dinesh Kumar deposed that on dated 16.10.2015, PW5 was posted at DIU West as HC. It is further stated that Inspector Rajpal Dabas and SI Vikas had received a case transferred from PS Mianwali Nagar regarding extortion and threat call. PW5 was made party to the team. It is further stated that PW5 alongwith Insp Rajpal Dabas and SI Vikas went to Keshopur Nala. It is further stated that a person was apprehended on the basis of suspicion. It is further stated that he was handed over to SI Umed Singh of PS Mianwali Nagar. It is further stated that that person was searched and from his right hand pocket of his wearing pant, a mobile phone was recovered. It is further stated that the said mobile phone contained two sims and one memory card. It is further stated that the said mobile phone was seized by Umed Singh and sealed with the seal of US. It is further stated that thereafter, they came back to our DIU office. The mobile phone was seized in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/A. It is further stated that the accused was arrested in my presence vide Ex.PW-5/B. It is further stated that his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo vide Ex.PW-5/C. It is further stated that disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/D of the accused was recorded in my presence.
6.6) PW6 Sh. Sanjiv Narang, Chief Section Supervisor, MTNL deposed that on State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 5/10
13.04.2015 PW6 was posted at MTNL office as aforesaid. It is further stated that the letter dated 13.04.2015 issued to PS Mianwali Nagar, New Delhi from the office of Manager IT West was issued by the then Manager of MTNL Rajouri Garden namely Ms. Shona Grover with the enclosures of CDRS and CAF details of telephone number 25276475 for the period 01.01.2015 to 13.04.2015. It is further stated that PW6 can identify the signatures and the writings of above said officer as PW6 had worked with her in the same office and had seen her writing and signing during the course of her ordinary business. It is further stated that PW6 identify her writing and signatures on Ex.PW6/A at point A and A1. It is further stated that PW6 also identify the computerized call details of the above said telephone number issued by his office and the same is Ex.PW6/B (colly). It is further stated that PW6 also identify the letter issued from the office of Area Manager, Hari Nagar, MTNL Delhi regarding the CAF details of telephone number 25276475 as the said letter is in the writing and bears the signatures of Sh. Vichitra Kumar who was the then Area Manager of Hari Nagar, Telephone Exchange and PW6 identify his writing and signatures as PW6 had worked with him in the same area office and had seen him writing and signing during the course of his business and the document is now Ex.PW6/C. It is further stated that the said CAF details are now Ex.PW6/D (colly). 6.7) PW7 SI Nitin deposed that in the month of August, 2016, PW7 was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as Sl. It is further stated that in the said month, PW7 received the investigation of the present case. It is further stated that PW7 prepared the chargesheet and thereafter PW7 was transferred from PS Mianwali Nagar. 6.8) PW8 Insp. Umed Singh deposed that on 16.3.15 PW8 was posted as SI at PS MW Nagar. It is further stated that on that day the present complaint was marked to PW8 for enquiry. It is further stated that after preliminary enquiry PW8 prepared the rukka on the complaint and got the FIR registered. It is further stated that the rukka is Exhibited as Ex. PW8/A. It is further stated that on the next day, PW8 visited the residence of the complainant i.e. Flat no.245 pocket GH5&7 Paschim Vihar, Delhi. It is further stated that thereafter PW8 recorded the statement of complainant and his wife u/s 161 CrPC. It is further stated that thereafter on 18.8.15 PW8 moved an State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 6/10 application to the concerned nodal officer through DCP, to provide the CDR of the alleged number of the complainant i.e. 011-25276475. It is further stated that the complainant in his complaint mentioned PW8 number i.e. 9679861004 and PW8 moved an application to provide the CDR of the said number. It is further stated that PW8 number i.e. 9735142257 came on record in the CDR of the accused number i.e. 9679861004. It is further stated that PW8 again moved an application for providing the CDR of the said number ie 9735142257. On 16/10/15 PW8 received information from DIU (District investigation unit) regarding the apprehension of accused Bikul Mandal at Keshav Puram Mandi Najafgarh Drain. It is further stated that thereafter PW8 reached at the given address and met the accused Bikul Mandal along with HC Dinesh and SI Vikas who were the staff of DIU. It is further stated that they told PW8 that accused Bikul Mandal was showing wanted in their list in the present case. It is further stated that thereafter PW8 interrogated the accused and the accused disclosed the incident. PW8 recorded his disclosure statement which is already Exhibit as PW1/5D. It is further stated that 1 mobile phone make Nokia 112 black colour IMEI no. 359000/05/213023/1 was recovered from the possession of the accused and PW8 seized the same vide seizure memo already exhibit as PW5/A. It is further stated that thereafter PW8 arrested the accused vide seizure memo and personal search memo already exhibit as PW1/5B & PW1/5C. It is further stated that thereafter PW8 recorded the statement of HC Dinesh and St Vikas u/s 161 CrPC. The accused told PW8 that accused inserted his sim card in the mobile phone of 1 person namely Tapan Mandal. It is further stated that PW8 along with accused went to the residence of that person and recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. It is further stated that thereafter PW8 received the PC remand of the accused and had taken him at different places mentioned by him in the search of other accused persons but no co accused could be found. It is further stated that thereafter the accused was sent to JC. It is further stated that PW8 got transferred from PS Mianwali during the investigation of the present case. It is further stated that PW8 submitted the case file with the MHC(R). It is further stated that MHC (M) has produced the case property which was seized by the IO and PW8 corretly identified State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 7/10 the same.
6.9) PW9 Sh. Pawan Singh Nodai Officer Vodafone Idea Ltd deposed that PW10 has been summoned to prove the CDR details of no. 9735142257 from dt. 01.01.2015 to 25.03.2015 (both home and rom CDR and Delhi Circle CDR) CAF alongwith the certificate 658 evidence Act. It is further stated that the CDR details are EX PW-9/A (colly), the CAF is EX PW9/B (colly) and the certificate is EX PW-9/c (colly) all bearing the signature of the than nodal officer and the stamp of the Vodafone mobile services Itd. at point A. It is further stated that the report given by the than nodal officer is EX 9/D and bearing the signature of the nodal officer at point A. It is further stated that PW10 identified the signature of the than nodal officer who was P.Singh. It is P.Singh not P Sunil.
6.10) PW10 Sh. Tapan Mandal deposed that PW10 is residing at the above mentioned address and at the time of incident as a laborer in Tikri School and residing there itself. It is further stated that PW10 was possessing a mobile sim bearing mobile number 9560247169 and sim was taken from by his cousin brother Sh. Bikul Mandal in July 2015 and he had use the same for few days and after that PW10 took the same back. It is further stated that Police took PW10 to Rajouri Garden from Tikri Border. After going to PS, police official had inquired from PW10 about the mobile number 9560247169 and PW10 had clarified to Police official that the sim belong to PW10 and they have also inquired one another mobile number from PW10 but PW10 was not having any knowledge about the same. It is further stated that however, his above mentioned mobile number was used by accused Bikul for few days to make call and he did so and used its in phone and after 15-20 days PW10 took the back. It is further stated that IO had seized his Intex imobile black colour and its sim vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-8/A. It is further stated that identit/production of the mobile not disputed. It is further stated that IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC.
7. DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
7.1) DW1 Sh. Jiten Mandal deposed that DW1 is resding at the above mentioned State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 8/10 addrss alongwith his family and DW1 and accused were working as Raj Mistri under the complainant. It is further stated that some amount was pending on the part of complainant and that to their monthly payment, however, on his request, his due were got cleared by complainant but he kept the dues of accused pending and accused requested multiple time to pay the said amount but he did not do so and falsely implicated him in the present matter and no incident as alleged had ever occured and no threat of extortion had been passed by the accused to the complainant. It is further stated that DW1 knew accused from last 20 years.
23. I have heard the submission of the parties and have perused the records carefully.
24. Indian Penal Code provides that :
Section 386 - Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
25. In the present case PW1 and PW4 are husband and wife who stated that they have received threatening call for ransom. The transcript of the call is not on record.
The said calls were not recorded by PW1 or PW4. What exactly has been stated during the threatening call cannot be figured out without the transcript of the call. There is also previous relation between PW1 and accused as accused was earlier working as Raj Mistri. The prosecution has been able prove that mobile numbers were issued in the name of Ms Shobha Shah and Mr. Tapan Mandal.
26. PW5 is the official police witness who stated the phone was seized and accused was arrested. PW6 is witness from MTNL office who produced CAF details. PW7 conducted part investigation in the present case. PW8 has conducted State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 9/10 the investigation in the present case. PW3 was official police witness. PW9 has produced CDR details alongwith CAF details. PW10 has deposed that mobile phone no. 9560247169 was taken by his cousin Bikul Mandal in July 2015 and the same was used by the accused at the relevant time of incident.
27. Accused has produced one witness in the present case. DW1 was working as Raj Mistri under the complainant. DW1 has stated that accused did not clear the dues of accused and complainant has tried to falsely implicate the accused.
28. The accused was admittedly working for the complainant as Raj Mistri. At the relevant time, accused was using the phone number from which extortion call was made. The call was not recorded. The whole case is based upon testimony of PW1 and PW4. When the accused was working as Raj Mistri then mobile phone number must have also been shared between accused and complainant. Had accused been a total stranger and thereafter called the complainant then it would have been easier to believe that accused has called the complainant without any reason and most probably for extortion. Complainant has admitted that accused was working from him as Raj Mistri. Exact dates are not given by complainant. Reasonable doubt has been raised by accused regarding details of conversation.
29. In conclusion, the accused Bikul Mandal stands acquitted of charged offence under section 386 of IPC. ANKIT Digitally signed by ANKIT KARAN SINGH KARAN Date: 2025.12.05 SINGH 16:26:39 +0530 Announced in the open court (ANKIT KARAN SINGH) on 05.12.2025 JMIC-08,West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Bikul Mandal FIR No. 189/15 U/s. 386 IPC 10/10