Delhi District Court
State vs Bipin Shukla on 10 December, 2025
State Vs. Bipin Shukla
FIR No.: 621/2015
PS: Anand Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.: 621/2015
PS: Anand Vihar
Under Sections 387/506/507 IPC
CNR No. DLSH020010672015
A Case Identification 77641/2016
Number
B Name of the Anil Kumar Gupta
Complainant S/o Late Heeralal Gupta
R/o H. No. 15, Shrestha Vihar,
Delhi-92.
C Name of the accused & Bipin Shukla
his parentage and S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore Shukla
address R/o Village Bayur, PS Kaubi,
District Chitrakoot, UP.
D Date of commission of 04.09.2015
the offences
E Date of Institution of 09.11.2015
the case
F Offences charged 387/506/507 IPC
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2025
of judgment
Digitally
signed by
MANISH MANISH
Date:
JAIN
page No. 1 of 14 JAIN 2025.12.10
16:48:24
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Bipin Shukla
FIR No.: 621/2015
PS: Anand Vihar
I Final Order Acquitted
J State represented by Sh. Arun Kumar Mavi, Ld. APP for
the State.
JUDGMENT
1. Present accused has appeared before the court to stand trial for the offences punishable u/s 387/506/507 IPC.
2. In brief, facts of the case as per the prosecution are that on 04.09.2015, complainant Anil Kumar Gupta, resident of Preet Vihar, Delhi lodged a written complaint at PS Anand Vihar stating that on 03.9.2015 between 7:29 PM and 7:30 PM, he received two missed calls from mobile number 7065140979 on his phone number 9582332996. When he called back the next morning around 10:06 AM, the caller identified himself as Surya and threatened him, demanding Rs. 25 lakh failing which the caller threatened to kill him and his family. The complainant stated that later he also received a text message from the same number reiterating the threat. During investigation, it was found that the alleged mobile number 7065140979 was registered in the name of Jeetu son of Rohtash, resident of Jhuggi Block-14, Geeta Colony, Delhi but the number was being used by Bipin Shukla, son of Gunga Kishore Shukla, resident of Shiv Mandir, Anand Vihar, Delhi. The said mobile number was activated on 31.08.2015 and remained active till Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 2 of 14 JAIN Date:
2025.12.10 16:48:35 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar
05.09.2015. The IMEI number used was 352971070288540 which had previously been used with another number 7042992740 belonging to one Nekapal Nekasi. The investigation revealed that Bipin Shukla was using a Samsung Duos phone with IMEI 352971070288540 and a Panasonic mobile with IMEI 355941061862120 and Airtel number 7042992740. On 18.09.2015, Bipin Shukla was arrested and both phones were seized. He was formally produced before the court where his personal search was conducted and the phones were sealed and taken into police possession. The case was registered under Sections 387/506/507 IPC. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences u/s 387/506/507 IPC.
3. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, accused was admitted to bail by the court and copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to him. Further, on 07.06.2017, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against accused and its copy was also supplied to accused.
4. Further, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2017 directed to frame charge for the offences u/s 387/506/507 IPC against accused.
5. Thereafter prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined 09 witnesses. The evidence so led by the prosecution witnesses is being stated as under:
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 3 of 14 JAIN Date:
2025.12.10 16:48:45 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar i. PW-1 Jeetu deposed that he resides at the stated address and works as an ironsmith. He stated that on 20.09.2015, police officials made enquiries from him regarding a SIM card obtained using his voter ID card. PW-1 categorically stated that he had never applied for, used, or got issued any such SIM in his name, nor had he handed over his voter ID card to anyone. In his further examination, PW-1 reiterated that he had never used SIM No. 7065140979 nor obtained it in his name. He denied giving his voter ID card to any person including any individual named Bipin Shukla. He identified the photocopies of his voter ID and Aadhaar card shown to him by the police. PW-1 stated that the police recorded his statement and clarified that he has no personal knowledge about the present FIR other than what was enquired by the police. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
ii. PW-2 Anil Kumar Gupta deposed that on 03.09.2015, he received a missed call from an unknown number on his mobile. On the next day i.e. 04.09.2015 at about 10:00 AM, he received a call on the same number and the caller threatened to kill his three children if he did not pay Rs. 25 lakhs. The caller disclosed his name as Surya. PW-2 again received threatening calls the same evening but did not answer. He lodged a complaint with the police which is Ex. PW1/A. On 05.09.2015, he received an SMS on his mobile demanding Rs. 1 crore. His Digitally signed by page No. 4 of 14 MANISH MANISH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.12.10 16:48:55 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar statement was recorded by the police. On 18.09.2015, his Samsung mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. During further examination, PW-2 stated that he had also received a call from mobile number ending with 979 and he confirmed receiving the threatening SMS saying "Anil kal sham teen baje tak ka time hai tere pass 1 crore tayar rakhwana, kal 03:00 baje ke baad tera bura waqt start." This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused.
iii. PW-3 Ct. Anuj Kumar deposed that on 08.09.2015, he joined the investigation with the IO/SI Mukesh. They went to Karkardooma Courts where ASI Mukesh from Special Cell produced the accused Bipin Shukla in court. With permission of the Ld. Presiding Officer, the accused was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/A, bearing his signature. He further stated that he personally conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered a Samsung mobile phone containing two Idea SIM cards which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B. Police remand of the accused was thereafter obtained and PW-3 returned to the police station where his statement was recorded. PW-3 correctly identified the accused in court. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
iv. PW-4 Inspector Pramod deposed that on 07.09.2015, he received information regarding FIR No. 621/15 in which the Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 5 of 14 JAIN Date:
2025.12.10 16:49:04 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar complainant had received extortion calls from mobile no. 7065140979. During analysis of CDR, it was found that the SIM was issued on a fake address. The number was traced to be of the area of Shreshtha Vihar, Jwala Nagar, Pratap Khand. He went with his team to Priya Communication, where one Naveen Thakur, the shopkeeper, confirmed that the SIM had been issued from his shop. Naveen Thakur also informed that he could identify the purchaser. At about 01:15 PM, one person visited the shop and Naveen Thakur identified him as the person who purchased the said SIM. PW-4 apprehended him, who disclosed his name as Bipin Shukla and admitted his involvement. During his search, a Samsung Duos phone along with one more SIM was recovered and seized vide memo Mark A. PW-4 stated that the recovered mobile phone and SIMs matched with the details in the CAF and IMEI data. The accused was arrested under Section 41.1 CrPC vide memo Mark B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Mark C. The accused was produced before the court on 08.09.2015. PW-4 correctly identified the accused in court and stated that the recovered Samsung Duos phone and SIMs had already been exhibited as P-1. This witness was cross-
examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
v. PW-5 SI Mukesh Singh deposed that on 07.09.2015, he was part of the raiding team constituted under the supervision of Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 6 of 14 Date:
JAIN 2025.12.10 16:49:13 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar Inspector Pramod. The team proceeded to Jwala Nagar, where the accused Bipin (Vipin) Shukla was arrested. From his possession, one Samsung mobile phone without battery and two SIM cards were recovered, one of which was allegedly used for making the extortion calls. PW-5 prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B for the mobile phone recovered from the personal search of the accused. PW-5 correctly identified the accused during his deposition. On being cross-examined by the Ld. APP (as he was not disclosing complete facts) PW-5 stated that he did not remember the IMEI numbers of the recovered mobile phones or the exact Airtel number found on the recovered SIM. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
vi. PW-6 Surender Kumar Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited produced and proved the record concerning mobile number 7042992740 for the period 01.04.2015 to 30.09.2015, exhibiting the CAF as Ex. PW6/A, the certified CDR as Ex. PW6/B(colly), the IMEI CDR as Ex. PW6/C(colly), the location chart as Ex. PW6/D(colly) and the requisite Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW6/E. He further produced and proved records for mobile number 9582332996 for the period 01.09.2015 to 10.09.2015, exhibiting the CAF as Ex. PW6/F(colly), the CDR as Ex. PW6/H, the location chart as Ex. PW6/I and the accompanying Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 7 of 14 JAIN Date:
2025.12.10 16:49:21 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW6/G. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
vii. PW-7 Satish Verma, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed that the CDR record summoned by the IO was not available as telecom companies are required to maintain CDR only for two years, as per Government Circular No. 20-217/2010 AS-I (Vol. III) dated 21.12.2021. A copy of this notification was produced as Ex. PW7/A. He further produced the Customer Application Form (CAF) pertaining to mobile number 7065140979, which stands in the name of Jeetu. The CAF was exhibited as Ex.PW7/B. He also produced the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex. PW7/C. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
viii.PW-8 Inspector Alok Kumar deposed that on 07.09.2015, while posted in Special Cell, Lodhi Colony as SI, he was part of the raiding team constituted by SI Pramod for tracing the accused in FIR No. 621/15. The team reached Priya Communication, Jwala Nagar, where shopkeeper Naveen Thakur informed that mobile number 7065140979 from which the threat call was made, had been issued from his shop to a regular customer. PW-8 stated that while they were present at Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 8 of 14 JAIN Date:
2025.12.10 16:49:31 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar the shop, one person visited Naveen Thakur, identified as purchaser of the SIM. PW-8 apprehended that person with assistance of SI Pramod and staff. Upon interrogation, the person disclosed his name as Bipin Shukla. From his possession, one Samsung mobile phone having two SIMs was recovered and seized vide seizure memo Mark A. The IMEI number of the recovered phone matched with the phone from which the extortion calls were made and the Idea SIM number was cross-verified with the CAF. PW-8 further stated that one Panasonic mobile phone was also recovered from the personal search of the accused. The arrest memo and personal search memo were exhibited as Mark B and Mark C. His statement was recorded on 23.09.2015. PW-8 correctly identified the accused in court. During cross-examination by the Ld. APP (as he was not disclosing full facts), PW-8 confirmed that the team reached Jwala Nagar around 12:30 PM, the mobile number involved was 7065140979 and the name of the mobile shop was Priya Thakur Communication. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
ix. PW-9 SI Mukesh Yadav deposed that on 04.09.2015, while on emergency duty at PS Anand Vihar, complainant Anil Kumar Gupta handed over a written complaint regarding extortion calls. He made endorsement on the complaint, prepared rukka Ex. PW9/A and got the FIR registered. Next day, he recorded Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 9 of 14 JAIN Date:
2025.12.10 16:49:40 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar the complainant's supplementary statement wherein complainant stated that he again received threatening calls/messages and the demand increased from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore. PW-9 obtained the CDR of mobile number 7065140979 and traced the CAF details to one Jeetu residing at Jhuggi, Geeta Colony. He visited the address but Jeetu was not found. On 08.09.2015, IO received information that accused Bipin Shukla had been apprehended by SI Pramod. PW-9 went to Karkardooma Courts along with Ct. Anuj, moved an application for interrogation, and the accused admitted making the extortion calls. His disclosure statement Ex. PW9/B was recorded. The accused was formally arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/B. One Samsung phone with two SIMs (alleged to be used for extortion) had already been seized by ASI Mukesh. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C. He sealed the case property and prepared the required DD entries, arrest memo and kalandra. The accused led the IO to Priya Thakur Communication, Jwala Nagar, from where the SIM was obtained. PW-9 examined the shop owner Naveen Thakur. On 18.09.2015, IO seized the mobile phone of the complainant vide Ex.PW1/B. On 20.09.2015, IO examined Jeetu, in whose name the disputed SIM was issued and recorded his statement. He also obtained certified CDR, CAF, IMEI and location charts of all relevant mobile numbers along with certificate u/s Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN
page No. 10 of 14 JAIN 2025.12.10
16:49:48
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Bipin Shukla
FIR No.: 621/2015
PS: Anand Vihar
65B Indian Evidence Act. On 02.11.2015, PW-9 sent the mobile phones recovered from the accused and complainant to FSL. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the court. PW-9 correctly identified the accused and the case property as Ex. P-1.
6. During the proceedings, vide separate statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C., accused has admitted the genuineness of documents i.e. DD No. 10 dated 07.09.2015, FIR of the present case as Mark X and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Mark Y.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, same was closed on 17.07.2025 and matter was listed for recording of statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC.
8. Statement u/s 313 Cr.PC of accused was recorded wherein he has denied all the allegations leveled against him and deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted by accused in his statement that he never made any call or sent any messages to the complainant. The mobile phone number 7065140979 and sim do not belong to him and the alleged phone was not recovered from his possession. He further stated that he was apprehended by the police officials from his home at about 11 am and was never arrested from the spot as alleged by the police Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN page No. 11 of 14 2025.12.10 16:49:58 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar officials. Accused did not chose to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the final arguments led by Ld. counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State and perused the record.
10.The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Only once this burden is duly discharged does the onus shift onto the accused to prove his innocence.
11.In the present matter, the prosecution alleges that the accused made extortion calls to the complainant, Anil Kumar Gupta, from mobile number 7065140979 on 4th September 2015 and subsequently sent extortion messages from the same number on 5th September 2015. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said mobile number stood registered in the name of one Jeetu. However, the prosecution claims that although the number was registered in Jeetu's name, it was in fact being used by the accused.
12.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Jeetu, who categorically deposed that he had never obtained or used the SIM bearing number 7065140979, and he also expressed complete ignorance regarding the identity of the accused. The complainant, PW-2, supported the contents of his complaint and reiterated that he Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Date:
page No. 12 of 14 JAIN 2025.12.10
16:50:07
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Bipin Shukla
FIR No.: 621/2015
PS: Anand Vihar
had received an anonymous call. It is evident from both the complaint and his testimony that the complainant had no personal knowledge as to the identity of the caller who issued the threats.
13.The Investigating Officer and other police witnesses deposed that the CDR of the aforesaid number was analyzed and it was traced to Priya Communication, Jwala Nagar, Delhi, allegedly owned by one Naveen Thakur. According to the prosecution, it was on the basis of identification made by Naveen Thakur that the accused was apprehended. However, Naveen Thakur was never examined in court, thereby depriving the prosecution of a crucial link in the chain of evidence.
14.It is further the case of the prosecution that upon searching the accused, one Samsung Duos mobile phone was recovered, allegedly containing the disputed SIM card. PW-4, during cross-examination, admitted that the place from where the accused was apprehended was a thickly populated area. Yet, no independent public witness was associated with the alleged recovery. Moreover, the prosecution has led no evidence to prove that the Samsung Duos mobile phone belonged to the accused.
15.The alleged recovery of the mobile phone and SIM during daytime from a densely populated locality, in the absence of any independent witness, casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 13 of 14 JAIN Date:
2025.12.10 16:50:16 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Bipin Shukla FIR No.: 621/2015 PS: Anand Vihar recovery. Additionally, the sole connecting link between the accused and the mobile number--namely, the alleged identification by Naveen Thakur, remains unproved due to his non-examination.
16.In view of these material deficiencies, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden placed upon it. Consequently, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed by MANISH today i.e. on dated 10th December 2025 MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.10 16:50:28 +0530 (MANISH JAIN) ACJM:SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI page No. 14 of 14 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi