Dheeraj Sao vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4887 Chatt

                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                             Order Sheet
                                        CRA No. 456 of 2022
            Dheeraj Sao, S/o Bindeshwari Sao, aged about 21 years, Resident of Chhattu
             Dhanwa, Police Station Jamui, District Jmui (Bihar), at present Resident of Waliya
             Complex, Transport Nagar, Ranwabhatha, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur
             (Chhattisgarh)
                                                                                  ....Appellant
                                                                                      (In Jail)
                                               Versus
            State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamtarai,
             District Raipur (Chhattisghar)
                                                                               ....Respondent

Division Bench:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

29/07/2022 Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

Heard on IA No.01, which is an application filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2021, the appellant has been convicted for offence: under Section 417 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 15 days; under Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short the "Act of 1967") and sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 15 days; under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act of 1967 and sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 15 days and also under Section 40(1)(c) of the Act of 1967 and sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 15 days (all substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently).

Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The allegation against the present appellant is that he is involved with unlawful organization (terrorist) and had obtained money from various countries and has further deposited the same in different bank accounts of co-accused persons. There is no evidence available on record against the present appellant to show that he has deposited, received or funded any amount to any unlawful organization or he is involved with any unlawful organization (Terrorist). He has no deposited any amount in the accounts of co-accused persons. Even, the Investigating Officer, namely, U.K. Chandravanshi (PW-28) has stated that there is no evidence or any document available on record to show that any bank transaction took place from any foreign country or any unlawful organization (Terrorist). The learned trial Court without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record in its correct perspective has convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offence by recording perverse findings, which is contrary to record. The appellant is in jail since 25.12.2013 and has completed more than 08 years 07 months in jail and there is no possibility of this appeal to be heard finally in near future, therefore, the appellant be enlarged on bail by suspending his jail sentence.

Per-contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel opposed the application and submits that present appellant is the main culprit in the crime in question. He has involvement with unlawful organization (terrorist) of other countries and has obtained money from them and deposited in the accounts of co-accused persons. Pursuant to his own memorandum statement (Ex.P/147), pass-books, slips of bank and other documents have been sized, which clearly shows that the appellant has deposited money in different account of co-accused persons, which he has obtained from other various countries, thus, Section 14 & 17 of the Act of 1967 are squarely attracted in the case of present appellant. By taking this Court to other evidence available on record, he submits that there is sufficient material available on record to connect the appellant-accused with the offence and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence aforementioned and, therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material available on record and especially considering the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is 10 years and out of which he has already completed more than 8 years and 7 months, as he is in jail since 25.12.2013 and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently and hearing of this appeal would take prolonged period of time in near future and also taking into consideration the statement given by the Investigating Officer, namely, U.K. Chandravanshi (PW-28), wherein he has stated that there is no evidence or any document available on record to show that any bank transaction took place from any foreign country or from any unlawful organization (Terrorist) in the instant crime, we deem it appropriate to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is hereby suspended. The appellant- Dheeraj Sao be released on bail on his executing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04.11.2022. He shall thereafter appear before the concerned trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, till the disposal of this appeal.

Consequently, I.A. No.01 is allowed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for disposal of IA No.01 and it shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the matter.

C.C. as per rules.

                             Sd/-                                     Sd/-
                      (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                     (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
[email protected]                       Judge                                     Judge