Pintu Tandi @ Karan @ Bullu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.03.11 11:15:32 +0530

1

2025:CGHC:11285-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 159 of 2025

¶7

1 - Pintu Tandi @ Karan @ Bullu S/o Balek Tandi Aged About 24 Years R/o Ranipur Jharial Police Station- Sindhekala District- Balangir (Orissa) Present Address- Block Number 12, Room Number 302 Ashoka Ratan, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Kailash Tandi @ Keti S/o- Balek Tandi Aged About 26 Years R/o Ranipur Jharial Police Station- Sindhekala, District- Balangir (Orissa) Present Address- Block Number 12, Room Number 302 Ashoka Ratan, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationCivil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

(Cause-title ta	ken from Case Information System)
For Appellants	: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate
For Respondent-State	: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

07.03.2025

¶17

1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi assisted by Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

¶18

2

¶19

2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case (NIA) No.72/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pintu Tandi alias Karan alias Bullu) , arising out of Crime No.340/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, by which the appellant's second application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D), 489(E), 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) has been rejected finding no merit.

¶20

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.06.2024, the complainant namely Bharti Dheewar and two others working in the office of the appellants, have made a complaint before the Police Station- Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.), alleging that they are residing at Raipur City and working in the office of Pintu alias Karan Tandi and Kailash Tandi, who runs office at Raipur and the branch office is situated at Ashoka Ratan (Khamhardeah), Raipur & Anupam Nagar (Shankar Nagar) Raipur. On the instructions given by the Pintu alias Karan Tandi and Kailash Tandi, they used to call the candidates for giving them service and for their registration in this respect, they obtained fees through QR code of the office, and name and list of the selected candidates were also provided by both the accused persons. When the candidates, started calling them, the complainant informed the accused

¶21

3

¶22

about the call of the candidates, than usually accused persons told their employees to ignore the calls and to block the calls, upon which the complainants had doubted upon the activities of the accused persons. After some days when complainant Sonam Tiwari entered inside of the cabin, she saw printed currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination (in A-4 size papers) were lying in the table, and on disclosure of the same, they tried to hide it and asked her to come after some-time as they are busy doing some work and they were further told not to disclose to other complainants. Thereafter, they all of them decided to report it and on the basis of written complaint of the complainants- Bharti Dhiwar, Sonam Tiwari, Jyoti Dhiwar, crime was registered against the appellants along with other accused persons at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G) in connection with Crime No.340/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D), 489(E), 120-B, 34 of the IPC. On 14.06.2024, the applicants and other accused were taken into custody and their memorandum statements were recorded, on which blank papers, mobile, cash, appointment letter, cheque book were seized as per the statement of the accused and after due arrest of the accused in the case and after completing the investigation, the concerned Police Station in-charge-Civil Lines, Raipur presented the challan against the accused persons before the learned NIA Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) on 09.09.2024.

¶23

4. The appellants preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS before the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 06.01.2025, against which,

¶24

4

¶25

this criminal appeal has been filed.

¶26

5. Mr. Awadh Tripathi and Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants has been arrested just to harass them for unnecessary trial and criminal prosecution. They further submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has failed to see that the appellants had been arrested by the police on the basis of suspicion and there is no cogent evidence is available to connect the appellant with the aforesaid crime as the mandatory provision of NIA Act has not been followed by the authority, therefore the entire prosecution case is become flawed. It has been contended that the appellants have nothing to do with the present case rather they have been implicated in this case as part of a conspiracy, as none of the persons about whom complainant has disclosed about providing jobs have ever made any complaint against the appellants. It has been further contended that from the perusal of the entire challan, it does not appear that the appellants have fabricated the above blank papers, since the counterfeit currency was not seized from the appellants, the essential elements of sections 489(A) to 489(D) of the IPC are not attracted. It has been argued that the appellants/accused have been linked with the above mentioned offence on the basis of a mere memorandum statements, whereas no counterfeit notes have been seized from the appellants. The present case, being a Scheduled Offence, falls under the special law governed by the law provided thereunder (The National Investigation Agency Act), under which, after the commission of the Scheduled Offence, the

¶27

5

¶28

applicants become entitled to get bail due to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act under the necessary provisions relating to the investigation of the offence. It has been further argued that challan has been filed against the appellants and the possibility of final disposal of the case taking time cannot be ruled out, due to the said reason the appellants may be entitled for bail. It has been lastly argued that similarly situated coaccused in same crime number have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 in CRA Nos. 1862/2024 and 1829/2024, hence, the present appellants be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶29

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the NIA/respondent vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that there is clear evidence regarding the involvement of the present appellants in the alleged offence, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail and consequently, criminal appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.

¶30

7. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶31

8. Considering the fact that no incrementing articles except A-4 size papers in printers have been recovered at the scene of the incident and the alleged fake currency note were not found. Further, from the proceeding also, no incriminating articles for preparation of counter fake

¶32

6

¶33

currency have been recovered from the possession of the present appellants, they are in jail since 14.06.2024, there is no other criminal antecedent of the present appellants as well as taking into account the fact that similarly situated co-accused in same crime number have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 in CRA Nos. 1862/2024 and 1829/2024, therefore, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants dated 06.01.2025 is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed .

¶34

9. Let the appellants- Pintu Tandi @ Karan @ Bullu and Kailash Tandi @ Keti, involved in Crime No.340/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D), 489(E), 120-B, 34 of the IPC, shall be released on bail on their executing bail bond to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with two local sureties, on following conditions :-

¶35

(i) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court;

¶36

(ii) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;

¶37

(iii) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of

¶38

7

¶39

the trial; and,

¶40

(iv) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶41

10. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the appellants shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and if they fail to appear or take unnecessary adjournment, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel their bail bonds and take them in custody.

¶42

11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶43

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶44

Yogesh

Pintu Tandi @ Karan @ Bullu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Tandi @ Karan @ Bullu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komal Singh Thakur Vs Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority

Dr. Chandrashekhar Ambulkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Panchuram Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harsh Sabharwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Tukaram Kunwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh