Irshad Aalam S/o Hasal Alam Aged About 35 Years (Worngly Mentioned As Irdash Alam) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kharora, District- Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7059 of 2025 Irshad Aalam S/o Hasal Alam Aged About 35 Years (Worngly Mentioned As Irdash Alam) R/o Saai Tagar Toti Chowki, Police Station And District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/09/2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 310/2014 registered at Police Station : Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 392, 414, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.09.2014, the 2 complainant Shriram Yadav reported that two unknown persons hired his Scorpio (CG-11-A-3101) from Gidhouri to Raipur and, while returning late at night near Barouda Krishi Farm, overpowered him, threatened with a knife, and looted the vehicle along with Rs.4,700/- cash and two mobile phones. Crime No. 310/2014 was registered under Sections 392/34 IPC. During investigation accused Raunak Shah and Mohammad Israil were arrested, the Scorpio was recovered, and their statements implicated Irshad Aalam, who had attempted to sell the vehicle, leading to addition of Section 414 IPC. Irshad Alam remained absconding for years and was later produced on a production warrant while serving a ten-year sentence in another serious case under Sections 392, 120-B, 397, 34, 302, 201 IPC; his memorandum disclosed he had changed the vehicle’s number plate, so Section 201 IPC was also added. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him for offences under Sections 392, 414, 34 and 201 IPC. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 in MCRC No.4276 of 2025, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground that The applicant asserts his innocence and contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated, with no direct or material evidence, no eyewitnesses, CCTV, forensic proof, or recovery of the looted Scorpio, cash, or mobiles linking him to the alleged offences. The prosecution relies only on weak circumstantial evidence, and mere reference to a prior case (Crime No. 288/2018) cannot prejudice this matter. He enjoys the presumption of innocence under Article 21, and continued 3 detention would cause undue hardship to his dependent family, amount to pre-trial punishment, and violate his right to a fair and speedy trial, especially when the charges do not attract death or life imprisonment and the trial is likely to be delayed. She further submits that although the present case was registered in the year 2014 and the applicant was wanted therein, the applicant was subsequently arrested in a different case registered in December 2018, pertaining to offences under Sections 392, 120-B, 397, 34, 302, and 201 of the IPC. The applicant was prosecuted in that case and was convicted by the trial Court. Against the conviction, he preferred an appeal before this Court bearing CRA No. 707 of 2025, along with the co-accused. The said appeal has been allowed, and the applicant has been ordered to be released on 28.07.2025. A copy of the order has been filed along with the covering memo in the bail application. Hence, she prays to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that though the applicant has no criminal antecedent and no recovery has been made from him, but on 12.09.2014 he allegedly, in furtherance of common intention with co- accused persons, committed robbery of a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG-11-A-3101, cash amount of Rs.4,700/- and two mobile phones from the complainant. It is further alleged that the applicant thereafter took the stolen vehicle for the purpose of disposal and, with intent to cause disappearance of evidence, changed the 4 5. 6. number plate and discarded the original, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 in MCRC No.4276 of 2025. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 21.04.2025, the fact that though the applicant is allegedly in furtherance of common intention with co-accused persons, committed robbery of a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG-11-A-3101, cash amount of Rs.4,700/- and two mobile phones from the complainant, also took the stolen vehicle for the purpose of disposal and, with intent to cause disappearance of evidence, changed the number plate and discarded the original, but there is no seizure of any incriminating article has been made from his possession and he has no criminal antecedent. So far as the applicant’s abscondance is concerned, the present case was registered in the year 2014, in which the applicant was declared wanted. However, the applicant was subsequently arrested in a separate case registered in December 2018, involving offences punishable under Sections 392, 120-B, 397, 34, 302, and 201 of the IPC. The applicant was prosecuted and convicted by the trial Court in that case. Against the conviction, the applicant, along with the co-accused, preferred an 5 appeal before this Court bearing CRA No. 707 of 2025. The said appeal has been allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on 28.07.2025. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested in the present case, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let the Applicant-Irshad Aalam, involved in Crime No. 310/2014 registered at Police Station : Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 392, 414, 201, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 8. 9. (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, 6 under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 10. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil