Delhi High Court
Shahjan Sheikh @ Tunnu @ Sajan vs State on 23 December, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : December 23rd, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 2443/2016
SHAHJAN SHEIKH @ TUNNU @ SAJAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.S.P. Singh and Mr.Krishna Kant
Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.M.S. Oberoi, APP with SI Dheeraj
Yadav, Special Cell.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
% ORDER
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. The present application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), has been filed
by the petitioner for seeking regular bail in a case registered as FIR
No.32/2013, under Sections 489B/489C/120-B of Indian Penal Code,
at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi Police.
2. The facts in brief are that the present case was registered on the
basis of secret information that a syndicate was involved in illegal
circulation of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN), printed in Pakistan
and the same were being infiltrated through Indo-Bangladesh Border.
Co-accused Farid-ul-Islam was arrested on 01.09.2013 from Old Delhi
Railway Station and huge amount of FICN was receovered from him.
Two other associates, namely, Kunj Bihari Pandey and Safid-ul-Alam
were also arrested on 02.09.2013. The investigation revealed that the
kingpin of the syndicate was the petitioner/accused Shahjan. Name of
the petitioner/ accused was also cropped up during investigation of
another FIR No.27/2013, Police Station Special Cell, Delhi. Non
Bailable Warrants were issued against the petitioner in the said FIR
and the Court has initiated the proceedings under Section 82/83
Cr.P.C. in the said FIR. During the proceedings under Section 83
Cr.P.C. in the case of FIR No.27/2013, the petitioner/accused was
apprehended on 25.03.2015 from his residence at District Malda, West
Bengal.
3. On 05.04.2015, the petitioner/accused was formally arrested in
the instant FIR. During interrogation, the accused disclosed
commission of crime of procuring and circulation of FICN in various
parts of India. Investigation revealed that in June 2013, accused
supplied FICM of Rs.8 lakhs to one Anand Tarapado Bahg in lieu of
50% genuine Indian currency with the direction to deliver Rs.3 lakhs
to co-accused Farid-ul-Islam. Later on, he provided Rs.5 lakhs to
Farid-ul-Islam. During investigation, call details of mobile phone of
the accused were collected which shows that he was in constant touch
with co-accused Farid-ul-Islam.
4. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner/accused is
that the petitioner is a petty contractor and supplies labour force to the
construction companies in the area of Gurgaon and Delhi. He
maintains his bank account with Axis Bank, Gurgaon for the purpose
of depositing money towards payment of labour force. The petitioner
has been falsely implicated on the disclosure statement of co-accused.
No FICN was ever recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
As per alleged bank deposit slips, very small amounts have been
deposited in the bank account of the petitioner, his wife and his
brother. The alleged bank deposit slips have been fabricated by the
police. All the co-accused persons in FIR No.27/2013 and in the
instant FIR have already been released on bail except the petitioner
and co-accused Farid-ul-Islam.
5. The bail application has vehemently been opposed by the APP
for the State. He has argued that the petitioner is the kingpin of the
syndicate which supplies FICN into India. At the time of arrest of co-
accused Farid-ul-Islam, some bank pay in slips were recovered which
were being used to deposit genuine Indian currency in the bank
account of petitioner/accused and his wife to obtain FICN. The
petitioner is involved in the heinous crime against the State and cause
damage to the Indian economy. It is further submitted that after great
efforts the petitioner/accused was apprehended and that if he were to
be released on bail, he may flee from justice.
6. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and APP
for the State were heard.
7. The allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused are
serious in nature to the effect that he was running a syndicate which
procured FICN from outside India and used to circulate the same into
India with a view to damage the economy of the country. It is
apparent that the co-accused Farid-ul-Islam was apprehended with
FICN of Rs.5 lakhs and thereafter the petitioner was apprehended.
Apart from allegations contained in the instant FIR, another case is
also registered against the petitioner with the similar allegations.
8. It is also matter of record that the petitioner/accused was
arrested with great efforts as firstly Non Bailable Warrants were
issued and then proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated
against him. Bank deposit slips have been recovered from co-accused
which shows that he used to deposit genuine Indian currency in the
bank accounts of the petitioner/accused and his wife in lieu of FICN.
There is apprehension of fleeing of the petitioner in case he is released
on bail. The trial of matter is still at the initial stage and the witnesses
are yet to be examined by the prosecution. The contention made by
the counsel for the petitioner that the allegations are false and there is
no evidence against the petitioner, is a matter of trial and no comment
on the same can be made at this stage. Such contentions can be
answered only after adducing evidence by the parties and that too at
the time of passing final judgment by the trial court.
9. Keeping in view the role assigned to the petitioner that he is the
kingpin of the syndicate running FICN racket, seriousness of the
offence and in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned, this
Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the
petitioner/accused on bail.
10. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
11. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.
12. Bail application is accordingly dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 23, 2016
dd
