Chattisgarh High Court
Zuber Hussain vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 164 of 2022
1. Zuber Hussain, aged about 42 years, S/o Mohammed, Resident of Majeti
Panchmuger Kolur, Police Station Kabur, District Manglore (Karnataka)
2. Aysha Bano, W/o Zuber Hussain, aged about 39 years, Resident of Majeti
Panchmuger Kolur, Police Station Kabur, District Manglore (Karnataka)
....Appellants
(In Jail)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamtarai,
District Raipur (Chhattisghar)
2. The Director General, National Investigation Agency, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
....Respondents
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
29/07/2022 Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate for the
appellants.
Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No.01, which is an application filed on behalf of the appellants 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
appellants have been convicted for offence: under Sections 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).
Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that
the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The only allegation against
the present appellants is that co-accused Dheeraj Sao, who is allegedly involved with
unlawful organization (terrorist) and had obtained money from various countries, has
deposited Rs.4,86,000/- in the account of appellant No.01 and Rs.4,80,000/- in the
account of appellant No.02. There is no evidence available on record against the
present appellants to show that the said amounts have been deposited by co-accused,
Dheeraj Sao in the account of the appellants and they are involved with any unlawful
organization (Terrorist). They have been convicted only on the basis of memorandum
statement of co-accused, Dheeraj Sao (Ex.P/135), which is inadmissible in the eyes of
law. 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 appellants for the
aforementioned offences by recording perverse findings, which is contrary to record. The
appellants are in jail since 09.02.2014 and have completed more than 08 years 05
months in jail and there is no possibility of this appeal to be heard finally in near future,
therefore, the appellants be enlarge on bail by suspending their jail sentence.
Per-contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel opposed the application and
submits that appellants are involved with co-accused- Dheeraj Sao, who has
involvement with unlawful organization (terrorist) and pursuant to the memorandum
statement of Dheeraj Sao itself (Ex.P/135), documents Ex.P/11, P/15, P/135, P/136,
P/26, P/27, P/28, P/29, P/30, P/133 & P/134 have been seized, which shows that an
amount of Rs.4,86,000/- has been deposited in the account of appellant No.01 and an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been deposited in the account of the appellant No.02. By
taking this Court to other evidence available on record, he submits that there is sufficient
material available on record to connect the appellants-accused with the offence and the
learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants 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 appellants by the learned trial Court is 10 years and out of
which they has already completed more than 8 years and 5 months, as they are in jail
since 09.02.2014 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 appellants by the learned
trial Court is hereby suspended. The appellants- Zuber Hussain and Aysha Bano be
released on bail on their executing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only)
each with one local surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04.11.2022. They
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 them 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)
Judge Judge
[email protected]
