Chattisgarh High Court
Satpati Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 December, 2022
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1688 of 2021
Satpati Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o
Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund., District :
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police
Station - Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
For the appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Judge & Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge Order on Board 14.12.2022 Heard.
1. The present appeal is against the order dated 08.12.2021 whereby the application filed by the appellant u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.301/ 2020 for the offence u/ss 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D read with section 34 of IPC was rejected.
2. As per the prosecution case, on a raid being conducted, from the possession of appellant, 450 fake currency notes of Rs.200/- denomination total amounting to Rs. 90,000/- as also the Printer were seized.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that other accused Bisikeshan Pradhan has been enlarged on bail in Cr.A.No.977 of 2022 on 22.02.2021 and this appellant is still in 2 jail, therefore, on the ground of parity his case may be considered and he may be bailed out.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the appeal.
5. Perused the earlier order of dismissal of present appellant Satpati Sahu. This Court by order dated 05.07.2021 has considered the argument of this appellant and took note of the fact that looking the nature of allegations, other accused Bisikeshan Pradhan, was granted bail vide order dated 22.02.2021 and the case of this appellant was found different. According to the prosecution case, the allegation levelled against this applicant is that from his possession, fake currency notes as also the colour printer and other printing material was seized. Since earlier it was held that the case of the present appellant is different from that of co-accused Bisikeshan Pradhan, the same fact remains as it is. Consequently, we are not inclined to allow the criminal appeal. This appeal is rejected. However, looking to the custody period of appellant, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Rao