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

O R D E R

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

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

2

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

3

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.

4

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.

5

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.

6