[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Cbi - Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Amit Jogi on 1 April, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 66 of 2026
CBI - Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Amit Jogi & Others
alongwith
CRR/434/2007 and CRR/232/2008
Order Sheet
01/04/2026 Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the
Appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CBI), Mr.
Shree Singh alongwith Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, learned counsel
for the Complainant-Satish Jaggi, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande,
learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned
Government Advocate for the State, Mr. R.S.Marhas, learned
counsel for the respondents No. 21, 22 and 23 {in Cr.R. No.
232/2008}.
At the outset, it has been pointed out that vide order dated
12.10.2023 passed by this Court, the respondent No. 7-Vikram
Sharma {in Cr.R. No. 232/2008}, was directed to be deleted from
the cause title as he had died on 24.02.2013 regarding which a
death certificate was also placed on record. Till date, the said
respondent has not been deleted from the array of the parties. In
the appeal filed before this Court being Cr.A. No. 735/2007, the
name of the said accused has already been deleted. Hence, the
Registry is directed to delete the name of respondent No. 7-
Vikram sharma in Cr.R. No. 232/2008, during course of the day.
In pursuance of the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the
Apex Court in Cr.A. No(s). 1927/2014 filed by the State of
Chhattisgarh, alongwith other connected matters, Cr.M.P. No.
495/2011, filed by the CBI, was heard by this Court on
25.03.2026 and leave to appeal was granted to the CBI and the
acquittal appeal was admitted for hearing and notices were also
issued to the respondent No. 1-Amit Aishwarya Jogi and he was
further directed to furnish his bail bond and sureties to the
satisfaction of the trial Court concerned.
On the said date i.e. 25.03.2026, Mr. Shailendra Shukla,
Advocate caused his appearance on behalf of the accused-Amit
Aishwarya Jogi and sought time to seek instructions and to file
his Vakalatnama which was allowed and the matters were
directed to be listed today for final hearing.
Today, when these cases are taken up for hearing, another
Advocate Mr. Vikas Walia, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi submits that though he has
filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused today, he prays that
he may be granted four week's time to prepare the case and the
hearing of appeal be adjourned. In this regard, he has filed an
application being IA No. 1/2026 under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking four week's
time to prepare and address final arguments in ACQA No.
66/2026. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh {AIR 2020 SC 232}, he
submits that the accused herein is entitled to a fair hearing and to
have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his
defence. It is further submitted that the order dated 25.03.2026
passed by this Hon'ble Court, granting leave to appeal against
acquittal resulting in the present proceeding have been
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the accused
vide Diary No. 19294/2026, on 30.03.2026 which is presently
pending consideration.
In compliance of the Apex Court's order dated 06.11.2025,
the de facto complainant Mr. Satish Jaggi was also made one of
the respondent in the appeal filed by the CBI (ACQA No.
66/2026) as respondent No. 3. The said complainant is being
represented by Mr. Shree Singh and Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh,
learned counsel, and the State is being represented by Dr.
Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, who
are present before the Court.
The order passed by the Apex Court dated 06.11.2025, in
Cr.A. No. 1927/2014 and other connected matters, which is on
record, on the basis of which the matter was firstly listed on
24.03.2026, this Court passed the following orders:
"Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant, submits that the matter has been
remanded by the Hon'ble Apex Court for rehearing;
however, he has no instructions as of today.
Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the CBI, along with Dr.
Saurabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General
appearing for the State, jointly submit that the
State had preferred CRMP No. 137 of 2008
seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of
acquittal dated 31.05.2007 passed by the learned
trial Court in favour of the accused, Amit
Aishwariya Jogi. The said application was
dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on
18.08.2011 on the ground that an application for
leave to appeal filed by the State was not
maintainable in a case investigated by the CBI.
It is further submitted that the CBI had also
challenged the judgment and order dated
31.05.2007 by filing CRMP No. 495 of 2011;
however, the same was rejected by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2011
on the ground of delay. Additionally, CRMP No.
434 of 2007, preferred by the de facto
complainant, namely Satish Jaggi, seeking
conversion of the revision into a criminal appeal to
enable him to challenge the acquittal of Amit
Aishwariya Jogi, was also dismissed vide order
dated 19.09.2011.
Being aggrieved by the orders dated
18.08.2011, 12.09.2011, and 19.09.2011, the
parties preferred CRA No. 1927 of 2014 and
connected matters before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated
06.11.2025, condoned the delay in filing CRMP
No. 495 of 2011 and remitted the matter to this
Court for fresh consideration of the application for
leave to appeal filed by the CBI on merits. It was
further directed that the CBI shall implead the de
facto complainant as well as the State as
necessary parties in the said proceedings.
Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel
for the CBI, has also produced a copy of the order
dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in CRA No. 1927 of 2014, which is taken on
record.
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel,
submits that he had earlier appeared on behalf of
respondent No. 2 in CRR No. 434 of 2007;
however, he presently has no instructions, as he
has since been appointed to the State panel.
Since CRMP No. 495 of 2011 is not listed
before this Court today, it is directed that the same
be connected with the present cases and listed
tomorrow, i.e., 25.03.2026.
As the matter has been remanded by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is deemed appropriate to
issue notice to the de facto complainant, Satish
Jaggi, as well as to the accused/respondent No. 2,
Amit Aishwariya Jogi, directing their appearance
before this Court tomorrow, either in person or
through counsel of their choice.
The notice shall be served through the
Superintendent of Police, Raipur, who shall file a
personal affidavit regarding service.
The learned State counsel is directed to
communicate a copy of this order to the
Superintendent of Police, Raipur for necessary
compliance.
Certified copy today."
Thereafter, notices were issued to the de facto
complainant-Satish Jaggi and the respondent/ accused-Amit
Aishwarya Jogi, for their appearance before this Court either in
person or through their respective counsel and the matters were
directed to be posted on 25.03.2026 on which date, leave was
granted to the CBI for filing the acquittal appeal. The accused-
Amit Aishwarya Jogi was also directed to furnish his bail bonds
and it is informed by Mr. Walia, learned counsel appearing for the
accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi that bail bond and sureties have
been duly furnished on 30.03.2026 before the learned trial Court.
The matter was remanded by the Apex Court vide order
dated 06.11.2025 for being decided by this Court, and one of the
co-accused namely Yahya Dhebhar has recently been granted
bail on 18.03.2026 in Cr.A. No. 4800/2024, by the Apex Court
wherein the Apex Court has also observed as under:
"....
The applicant, Yahya Dhebar, has been in
prison since 30.04.2024. By way of this
application, he seeks suspension of the sentence
imposed upon him and grant of bail pending the
disposal of his appeal.
We are now informed that a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court passed judgment dated
06.11.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 1927/2014
and batch whereby, in relation to the very same
offence, the appeal of the Central Bureau of
Investigation has been allowed. Consequently,
the application of the CBI for grant of leave to
appeal against the acquittal of one of the
accused in this offence was directed to be
considered by the High Court on its own merits.
We are also informed that the revisions
filed by Satish Jaggi, the de facto complainant,
are also pending consideration before the High
Court, viz., Criminal Revision Nos. 434/2007 and
232/2008.
Given this situation and in the light of the
judgment passed by the 3-Judge Bench, it would
not be appropriate for this Bench to hear the
appeals filed by the convicted appellants at this
stage. The appeals would necessarily have to
await the decision of the High Court in the
aforestated pending cases, as consideration of
the evidence adduced against the convicted
appellants in these appeals by this Court will
invariably impact the pending cases before the
High Court.
In such a situation, we do not think it would
be proper that the applicant, Yahya Dhebar,
should continue to remain in prison, when other
similarly situated co-convicts have been granted
the relief of suspension of sentence and
consequential bail.
The sentence of imprisonment imposed
upon the applicant, Yahya Dhebar, that stood
confirmed by the High Court, shall stand
suspended on payment of the fine amounts. The
applicant shall be released on bail on such
appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed
by the trial Court.
I.A. No. 295380/2025 is disposed of
accordingly.
In the light of the aforestated observations,
these appeals shall stand adjourned sine die.
Learned counsel for the parties may make
a mention for re-listing of these appeals after the
disposal of the matters pending before the High
Court.
Lastly, as the hearing and disposal of
these appeals hinges upon the disposal of the
pending matters before the High Court, we would
request the High Court to expedite the hearing of
those pending matters to the extent possible."
When these matters are taken up today for hearing in
pursuance of the order passed by the Apex Court on 06.11.2025,
dialatory tactics are being adopted by the counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi, by praying for
adjourning the matters for four weeks.
On the last date of hearing, Mr. Shailendra Shukla, learned
counsel had appeared on behalf of the accused-Amit Aishwarya
Jogi and had sought time to file his Vakalatnama and to seek
instructions. He also requested the Court that a set of paper book
may be supplied to him upon which this Court directed the
learned counsel appearing for the CBI to supply a set of paper
book to Mr. Shailendra Shukla which was duly complied with.
Today, Mr. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the CBI, Dr.
Pandey, learned State counsel alongwith Mr. Marhas, learned
counsel for the respondents No. 21 to 23 are present and a new
counsel, namely, Mr. Vikas Walia has appeared on behalf of the
accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi who prays for adjournment of these
cases on the ground that the paper book is voluminous and would
take some time for preparing the case as he has been engaged
as counsel yesterday itself.
The record reflects that on the previous date of hearing,
i.e., 25.03.2026, sufficient opportunity was granted to the accused
through his then counsel, Mr. Shailendra Shukla, who sought time
to obtain instructions and was also furnished with a complete set
of the paper book at his request. Despite this, instead of
proceeding with the matter, the accused has now chosen to
engage another counsel at the eleventh hour, who reiterates the
same prayer for adjournment.
Such conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court,
clearly indicates a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings.
The repeated change of counsel, coupled with successive
requests for adjournment on identical grounds, cannot be
permitted to impede the progress of a matter which has been
specifically remanded by the Hon'ble Apex Court with a request
for expeditious disposal. Further, the connected revision petitions
filed by the complainant are pending since 2007 and 2008
respectively and the petition i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 495/2011, seeking
leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused-Amit
Aishwarya Jogi was filed way back in the year 2011 by the C.B.I.
and after its dismissal by this Court, the same was challenged
before the Apex Court by the C.B.I. and the Apex Court, vide
order dated 06.11.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.)
No. 3037/2012, remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh
consideration on the application for grant of leave to appeal, on
merits. Thereafter, the Apex Court, in Cr.A. No. 4805/2024, filed
by one of the convict, namely Yahya Dhebhar, while granting bail,
has observed that the High Court should expedite the hearing of
the pending matters to the extent possible. In this backdrop, any
attempt to protract the hearing on untenable grounds deserves to
be deprecated.
Accordingly, the application (IA No. 1/2026) seeking
adjournment is hereby rejected. However, in the interest of
justice, the matters are directed to be listed tomorrow, i.e.,
02.04.2026, to afford an opportunity to the learned counsel for the
accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi, to prepare the case and make
appropriate submissions.
It is further made clear that if the counsel engaged by the
accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi is not ready to argue the matter
tomorrow, this Court shall pass appropriate orders.
Let these matters be listed again tomorrow i.e. on
02.04.2026 for final hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
