1 CRA No. 1585 of 2025 2025:CGHC:44912-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1585 of 2025 Domendra Mahipal S/o Late Sanat Mahipal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Ausar, P.S.- Ranitarai, District- Durg (C.G.) Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/09/2025 1. This appeal, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case (NIA) No.25/2024 by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the bail application of the appellant filed under RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.04 11:16:41 +0530 2 CRA No. 1585 of 2025 Section 483 of the BNSS in respect of Cr.No.39/2024 registered at PS Saraipali, District Mahasamund, for offence under Sections 489B & 489C read with Section 34 of the IPC was rejected. 2. The factual backdrop, in brief, is that on 31.01.2024, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), acting upon credible secret information, intercepted pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG-13- AU-4670 near Agrasen Chowk, Saraipali, around 5:00 p.m. The driver, Arun Sidar, was apprehended and, on interrogation, disclosed that he had received counterfeit notes near Amethi Chowk for circulation in Raipur for monetary gain. A search conducted in the presence of witnesses yielded (i) a Redmi 84 mobile phone worth ₹10,000, (ii) the pickup vehicle valued at ₹10,00,000, and (iii) four plastic bags containing counterfeit ₹500 currency notes, each bag containing 190 bundles of 100 notes, aggregating to ₹3,80,00,000. Thus, total seizure worth ₹3,90,10,000 was effected. An offence was registered against Arun Sidar and others for offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 IPC. During investigation, the memorandum statements of co-accused Vijay Barman, Pyarelal Kure, and Raju Banjare disclosed the involvement of the present appellant, Domendra Mahipal, in the conspiracy to circulate counterfeit notes. Though no fake currency was seized from him, a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was filed against him, recording his role in the conspiracy. It also surfaced that the appellant has prior involvement in cases of cheating 3 CRA No. 1585 of 2025 and fraud. After completion of investigation and filing of challan on 16.07.2024, the appellant was arrested on 24.06.2025. His bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was dismissed by order dated 29.07.2025. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts. It is contended that the appellant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of co- accused, which are not substantive evidence. No counterfeit notes were ever seized from him. He was arrested after about one and a half years of the incident, though he was neither absconding nor concealing himself. It is also urged that he had earlier approached this Court in CRMP No.1909/2024, which was disposed of noting that his name did not figure in the charge-sheet. It is further argued that the prosecution has not adhered to the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008, while filing the supplementary charge-sheet, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. On these grounds, prayer for grant of bail is made. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the trial court has rightly rejected the bail application considering the gravity of the offence, the enormity of the seizure, and the antecedent of the appellant. It is argued that the appellant is not a stranger to criminal activity and his past involvement in cheating and fraud reflects his propensity to commit economic crimes. The submission that he has been implicated only on the basis of co-accused’s memorandum is misconceived, as the 4 CRA No. 1585 of 2025 investigation clearly delineates his role in the conspiracy. The absence of recovery from him does not exonerate him, particularly when the case pertains to a large-scale racket involving counterfeit notes worth several crores. He was absconding, and therefore a separate charge-sheet was filed against him, with his trial being segregated from that of the co-accused persons. Hence, dismissal of appeal is sought. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. On due consideration, it clearly emerges that whopping counterfeit currency to the tune of ₹3,80,00,000 was seized from co-accused Arun Sidar. The subsequent investigation unearthed the complicity of the appellant, as reflected in the memorandum statements of co-accused Vijay Barman, Pyarelal Kure, and Raju Banjare, which prima facie disclose his active participation in the conspiracy. The filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant, after due application of mind by the investigating agency, underscores the sufficiency of material indicating his involvement. Moreover, the charge-sheet was filed against him in the capacity of an absconding accused, and his trial was segregated from that of the co-accused persons.. 7. The argument that his implication is based solely upon co-accused’s memorandum cannot, at the stage of bail, be a ground for exoneration. The statements, when read with the corpus of material collected, prima facie reveal his role in the criminal design. It is trite that at the stage of considering bail, a meticulous dissection of evidentiary worth is not warranted and such scrutiny is reserved for trial. The appellant’s 5 CRA No. 1585 of 2025 antecedent, which reveal his prior indulgence in offences of cheating and fraud, also reflect a proclivity towards economic offences of similar nature. 8. It is a trite law that at the stage of bail, courts must not undertake a detailed examination of evidence, but only ascertain whether a prima facie case exists and further the gravity of the offence and its impact on society are relevant considerations while adjudicating bail. 9. The contention regarding procedural irregularities under the NIA Act, 2008, is a matter for trial and does not, at this preliminary stage, provide a basis for enlargement on bail. Likewise, the fact that the appellant was arrested subsequent to the filing of supplementary charge-sheet does not mitigate the seriousness of the allegations where hefty amount in crores is involved, particularly when his complicity stands delineated during investigation. 10. In the considered view of this Court, the magnitude of the recovery, the seriousness of the charge under Sections 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 IPC, the deleterious impact of counterfeit currency on the national economy, and the antecedents of the appellant, together furnish compelling grounds against grant of bail. The impugned order dated 29.07.2025, passed by the learned trial court, is sound, well-reasoned, and suffers from no infirmity warranting interference. 11. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. S Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul