NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1449 OF 2008
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1667 of 2008]
Anwar Ali .....
Appellant
Versus
State of Chhatisgarh ..... Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
21.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at
Bilaspur in M. Crl. C. No.1991/2007. By the impugned
order, the High Court rejected the application of the
appellant for grant of bail filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 327/2007
2
registered in Police Station, Durg, for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the
appellant and other accused are that on 17.03.2007 the
police officials of Thana searched the vehicle bearing
Registration No. C.G. 07-M-9211 at Tax Naka, Kumhari,
and enquired from the appellant about the Registration
Certificate book and other papers of the said vehicle.
After checking the vehicle, it was found that the engine
number and chassis number mentioned in the R.C. book
did not tally with the number bearing on the engine and
chassis of the vehicle. The Police made enquiry from
R.T.O. and came to know that the said vehicle, i.e.
Wagon-R, was not registered with the R.T.O. During
investigation, it was found by the Police that the
documents in question were forged and the same are
prepared by co-accused, namely, Bunty @ Shahid, who is
an agent of the R.T.O. On 14.06.2007, the Police
arrested the appellant on the allegation that the
3
appellant used the forged documents as genuine and
since then he is confined to jail.
3. The appellant filed an application for bail under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High
Court of Chhatisgarh, which came to be dismissed on
21.11.2007. Now, the appellant is before this Court
seeking bail in the aforesaid case.
4. The order of the High Court reveals that one Unush Ali
purchased a car bearing Registration No. AP 13F 6082
and handed over the papers to the appellant, who is
nephew of Unush Ali, for getting the Registration
Certificate from R.T.O., Durg. The appellant was driving
the vehicle when it was directed to be stopped by Shri
Moh. Jalaluddin, A.S.I., Crime Squad, Durg. During
interrogation, it was found that the chassis number
indicated on the Registration Certificate did not tally with
the chassis number of the vehicle. Subsequently, it was
discovered that the Registration Certificate possessed by
the appellant was a forged document. On these
4
premises, the High Court rejected the bail application of
the appellant.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not
in dispute that Unush Ali, who is uncle of the appellant,
is the owner of the car, which was handed over to the
appellant for getting the Registration Certificate from the
R.T.O., Durg. The Registration Certificate and other
papers of the car were handed over by Unush Ali to the
appellant. It is not in dispute that co-accused Bunty @
Shahid, who is said to be an agent of the R.T.O., has
been granted bail by the High Court on 01.10.2007. The
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the
appellant and Bunty @ Shahid is identical. The
appellant is in jail since 14.06.2007. The learned
counsel for the State was not in a position to state in
regard to the progress and stage of the trial of the case
registered against the appellant and co-accused. The
custody of the appellant is not required by the
Investigating Officer for further interrogation.
5
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that it is a fit case where the appellant deserves to
be released on bail and we, accordingly, order his release
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall furnish personal bond
in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one solvent
surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ii) The appellant shall make himself available
for interrogation as and when he is so
directed by the Investigating Officer by
sending written Hukumnama to him.
(iii) The appellant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, promise or
threat to any witness acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court.
[iv] The appellant shall remain present during
the trial of the case on every date of hearing,
save and except, if otherwise directed by the
trial court.
6
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms
and conditions.
………………………………….J.
(R. V. Raveendran)
………………………………….J.
(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)
New Delhi,
September 10, 2008.
