1 2025:CGHC:24763-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 636 of 2025 • Manglu @ Mangal Malakar S/o Yudhishtir Malakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Barampur Police Station Sariya District Sarangarh Bhilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rohitashva Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.19 10:56:14 +0530 2 2. I. A. No. 01/2025, this is an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 3. On due consideration, I. A. No. 01/2025 is allowed. Delay is condoned. 4. 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 22.01.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge [Special Judge, (NIA Act)], Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NIA) No.34/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Sampat Kumar Toppo & Ors.), arising out of Crime No.102/2024 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur (C.G.), by which the appellant's application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail for offences under Sections 489(B), 489(C) and 120(B) of the IPC has been rejected finding no merit. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.06.2024, the informant gave an information to the concerned Police Station that in a white Alto Car bearing registration No.CG 16 CM 9300 one Lalit Mahraj along with Sampat Kumar Toppo who was looking for a customer to exchange fake currency notes with original currency notes. On that information, the police reached the spot and found the said white Alto Car whereby accused Lalit Mahraj along with 2 other co-accused ran towards the forest while the driver of the vehicle Sampat Kumar Toppo who remained seated inside the car was caught by the police. The vehicle in 3 which the police found 150 fake notes of Rs. 500/- worth Rs. 75,000/- and true currency notes worth Rs. 49,000/-. On the basis of memorandum of other co-accused present appellant was arrested on 14.10.2024 and seized computer and printer from the possession of the appellant which was used in the alleged illegal printing of fake currency. The crime being serious in nature, offences under Sections 489(B), 489(C) and 120(B) of the IPC has been registered against the present appellant. 6. The appellant preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS before the Sessions Judge [Special Judge, (NIA Act)], Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), which was rejected by the impugned order dated 22.01.2025, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant has been arrested just to harass him for unnecessary trial and criminal prosecution. He further submits that the applicant is involved in the criminal case of fake printing of currency notes worth Rs.75,000/- on which the case was registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur under Sections 489(B), 489(C) and 120(B) of the IPC and thereafter, the case was transferred to NIA, wherein case was registered as Special Criminal Case (NIA) No.34/2024. It has been contended that two other co-accused have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17/12/2024 and 07/03/2025 passed in CRA No. 2061 of 2024 and CRA No. 391 of 2025 4 respectively and further submits that the appellant was arrested on 14.10.2024 and since then, he is in jail, hence the appellant be released on regular bail. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the evidence which have been collected during the course of investigation against the appellant goes to show his active participation and involvement in the said crime. He further submits that search was conducted and a printer was recovered. It is further submitted that though it has been stated by the applicant that out of 12 cases, 09 cases are of theft and in the year 2013 the appellant has been acquitted and in one of the cases, applicant has been convicted by the trial Court registered as Crime No. 219/2016 under sections 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D), 489(E) and 34 of IPC and sentenced him for 05 years against which he has preferred an appeal before this Court wherein he has been enlarged on bail. By committing the present offence, the appellant has misused the liberty of bail. It has been contended that the appellant has been arrested on 14.10.2024 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. Hence, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be rejected. 9. 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. 5 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, seizure of incriminating articles and the conduct of the appellant and further considering period of detention since 14.10.2024 and particularly considering the fact that the appellant has committed one crime of identical nature wherein he has been convicted by the trial Court for five years imprisonment and against his conviction, he has preferred an appeal before this Court and has been enlarged on bail by this Court further the appellant has misused the liberty of bail and committed the present crime, hence, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. The case of the appellant is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons who have been granted bail by this Court as they had no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is rejected. 11. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this judgment in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment and the appellant is directed to co-operate with the trial. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar/ Jyoti