The High Court clarifies that at the bail stage—especially in cases involving grave economic offences such as counterfeit currency rackets—courts must not meticulously dissect evidentiary worth, but should be guided by the gravity of the offence, the prima facie material collected during investigation (even if primarily based on co-accused’s statements), and the accused’s antecedents. The decision follows existing precedent, affirms established law, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in similar matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1585/2025 of DOMENDRA MAHIPAL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010339012025 |
| Date of Registration | 05-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the correct approach to bail in grave economic offences and affirms trial court’s order |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Bail jurisprudence in serious economic offences (counterfeit currency, conspiracy) |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail can be granted when the accused is implicated in a conspiracy involving counterfeit currency mainly on co-accused’s statements and supplementary charge-sheet, despite absence of direct recovery. |
| Ratio Decidendi | At the stage of considering bail in serious economic offences such as counterfeit currency rackets, the court is not expected to undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence, but must examine whether a prima facie case exists, the gravity and societal impact of the offence, and the accused’s antecedents. Involvement indicated by co-accused’s statements and supplementary charge-sheet is sufficient for the purposes of bail consideration. Procedural objections under the NIA Act or delayed arrest after charge-sheet do not, by themselves, justify bail where conspiracy and gravity are evident. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | General “trite law” on bail (specific precedents not cited in the extract) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Courts must not dissect the evidentiary worth at bail stage; grave economic offences affect national interest and require stricter scrutiny on bail; antecedent conduct is relevant. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Large quantity of counterfeit ₹500 notes (₹3,80,00,000) seized from vehicle; appellant linked by co-accused’s memorandum statements; no direct recovery from appellant but prior criminal antecedents; supplementary charge-sheet filed with trial segregated for absconding accused. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Follows established “trite law” that courts should not engage in deep evidentiary scrutiny at bail stage in grave offences |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that, at bail stage in grave economic offences, statements of co-accused and supplementary charge-sheets may suffice to establish prima facie complicity, even in absence of direct recovery.
- Affirms that courts must consider gravity of the offence, societal impact, and criminal antecedents, rather than conduct a detailed evidentiary analysis at the bail stage.
- Procedural challenges (such as alleged non-compliance with NIA Act, 2008, or delayed arrest vis-à-vis charge-sheet) do not alone justify bail in cases involving serious and large-scale offences.
- Reminds counsel that objections regarding evidentiary sufficiency or procedural irregularities are to be agitated at trial, not at the pretrial bail stage in such offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court confirmed that an enormous quantity of counterfeit currency was seized, and appellant was linked via co-accused memorandum statements and supplementary charge-sheet.
- Noted that supplementary charge-sheet was filed after investigation, treating the appellant as absconding with trial segregated from co-accused.
- Recognized that at the bail stage, it is “trite law” that courts do not dissect the evidentiary merit in detail; rather, the court checks only for existence of a prima facie case.
- Emphasized that gravity of offence, societal impact (especially in large-scale counterfeit currency matters), and antecedents of the accused are critical factors.
- Held procedural objections under the NIA Act and delayed arrest do not diminish seriousness of allegations or suffice to grant bail, these issues being germane for trial.
- Found the trial court’s order rejecting bail to be well-reasoned, and declined interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Implication based solely on memorandum statements of co-accused, which are not substantive evidence.
- No counterfeit notes were seized from appellant.
- Arrested about one and a half years after the incident though not absconding or concealed.
- Earlier application disposed noting name not in original charge-sheet.
- Prosecution did not comply with Section 6 of NIA Act when filing supplementary charge-sheet; this vitiates proceedings.
- Sought bail on these grounds.
Respondent (State):
- Trial court rightly rejected bail considering gravity of offence, enormity of seizure, and antecedents.
- Appellant has a history of cheating and fraud, showing criminal proclivity.
- Appellant implicated not solely on co-accused’s statements; investigation delineates his role in conspiracy.
- Absence of direct recovery immaterial given the scale and racketeering involved.
- Appellant was absconding, justifying separate charge-sheet and segregated trial.
- Sought dismissal of bail appeal.
Factual Background
On 31.01.2024, an interception at Saraipali led to the seizure of counterfeit ₹500 currency notes worth ₹3,80,00,000 from a pickup vehicle. The accused driver confessed to transporting these notes for circulation. Subsequent investigation based on statements from co-accused pointed to the appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy, though no counterfeit currency was directly seized from him. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the appellant as an absconding accused, and his criminal antecedents were noted. His initial bail application under the BNSS, 2023, was rejected, leading to the present appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 21(4), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: Provision invoked for appeal against the Special Judge’s denial of bail.
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Basis of bail application before the trial court.
- Sections 489B & 489C read with Section 34 IPC: Substantive offences relating to counterfeiting currency and criminal conspiracy, providing the foundation for charges.
- Procedural objections under Section 6, NIA Act, were raised but considered matters for trial, not bail.
- The court interpreted these provisions narrowly at the bail stage, deferring substantive statutory scrutiny to trial.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There was no dissent; both Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge concurred in the decision to dismiss the bail appeal and in the legal reasoning given.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directives or innovations were promulgated in the judgment; the court restated existing legal/processual standards for bail in serious economic offence cases.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Court affirms and applies extant precedent regarding bail principles in serious economic offences; no departure from established law.
Citations
None specifically provided in the text of the judgment available. NAFR (Not Approved For Reporting) status is noted, indicating non-reportable status.