Chattisgarh High Court
Neer Afjal Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 March, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2131 of 2024
Annu Chouhan S/o Godal Chouhan Aged About 34 Years Resident Of
Odekera, Thana, Jaijaipur District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
--- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir
Champa (C.G.)
--- Respondent
CRA No. 2106 of 2024
1 - Neer Afjal Khan S/o Mohd. Safeel Khan, Aged About 29 Years R/o
Jaijaipur, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
2 - Gautam Dhivar S/o Radhelal Dhivar, Aged About 24 Years R/o Odekera,
Police Station-Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
3 - Kushal Shriwas S/o Ramayan Shriwas, Aged About 30 Years R/o
Odekera, Police Station-Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-
Jaijaipur, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
--- Respondent
Bhagwat Vaishnav S/o Kanhaiyadas Aged About 38 Years R/o Mohadih,
Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
1 - Rajendra Kurre Son Of Dujram Kurre Aged About 22 Years Resident Of
Village Pihreed, Police Station Malkharouda, District - Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Bhagwat Chandra Son Of Ramesh Chandra Aged About 20 Years
Resident Of Village Bhutaha, Police Station Malkharouda, District - Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station
Jaijaipur, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Order Sheet
26/03/2025 Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra,
Advocate and Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate for the
respective appellants.
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 12.11.2024 passed in Special Case (NIA) No. 9/2021 by
the Court of learned Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur (C.G.), the appellants have been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 489(C) of IPC R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.
1000/-, in default of payment of
fine, additional R.I. for 01
month.
Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2024 (application under section
430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail) in CRA No. 2131 of 2024, I.A. No.
1 of 2024 (application under section 430 of B.N.S.S. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail) in CRA No. 2106 of
2024, I.A. No. 1 of 2024 (application under Section 430 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of
sentence and for grant of bail) in CRA No. 2134 of 2024 and
I.A. No. 1 of 2024 (application under Section 430 of B.N.S.S.
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail) in CRA No. 2154
of 2024.
Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant
in CRA No. 2131 of 2024 would submit that the appellant has
only been convicted by the deposition made by the constable
PW-11 namely Rajkumar Lahre, who supported the story of the
prosecution, because he himself has been a part in the
investigation of the said offence, whereas all the witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would
further submit that there is no independent eyewitnesses to the
incident, whereas incident is said to have been occurred at a
dense and crowded public place that too in abroad day light.
The seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution
case. He would further submit that the offence committed by
the appellants is bailable. The appellants were on bail during
the trial and not misused the liberty granted by the trial Court.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in CRA No. 2106 of 2024 and CRA No. 2154 of
2024 would submit that the prosecution has not proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubts. There are major contradiction
and omissions between the Court statement and the case diary
statement of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant has
been convicted on the basis of evidences on which reliance
could not have been placed for convicting the appellants.
Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in CRA No. 2134 of 2024 would submit that the
investigating officer has failed to prove that he has followed the
standard procedure for making the seizure of currency notes
and failed to proof the quantity of notes seized. Neither the
Inspector (PW-11) has made proper search of his raiding staff
or independent witnesses nor deposited the bundle of notes to
the safe storage. There are huge discrepancies on the
procedure opted by the investigating officer. The appellants are
in jail since 12.11.2024, the final adjudication of the case will
take its own time, and therefore they may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants and submits that, the charges leveled against the
appellants are of serious nature and therefore they entered into
a criminal conspiracy to earn money by counterfeiting currency
notes and using them as genuine notes. A huge number of
counterfeit notes have been recovered from the possession of
the appellants, so also laptop, scanner, colour printer, blank
paper, pen drive, scale, etc. have been seized from their
possession, therefore, the bail application of the appellants are
liable to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, considering the nature of evidence collected
against the present appellants, further considering the the fact
that the appellants have been convicted for maximum
sentence of 5 years under Section 489(C) of IPC and as the
under trial after conviction, they have served about 4 months
12 days of jail sentence, and further that the final adjudication
of the appeal will take its own time, we are inclined to release
the appellants on bail.
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence awarded to
appellants- Annu Chouhan (in CRA No. 2131 of 2024), Neer
Afjal Khan, Gautam Dhivar, Kushal Shriwas (in CRA No.
2106 of 2024), Bhagwat Vaishnav (in CRA No. 2134 of 2024),
Rajendra Kurre and Bhagwat Chandra (in CRA No. 2154 of
2024) by the learned trial Court is hereby suspended. They
shall be released on bail on their executing personal bond of
Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each of the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for their appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 06.05.2025. 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 final disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, I.As. No. 1 of 2024 in all the appeals filed
by appellants are allowed.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove
are only confined for disposal of aforesaid I.As. filed in this
appeal and it shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion of this Court on the merits of the matter.
Let this matter be listed after 06 months for final
hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
