Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 81 (CHH)

FIROZ RIZVI v. STATE OF C. G.

2009-03-03

D.R.DESHMUKH, DHIRENDRA MISHRA

body2009
ORDER Heard. This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No. 1/2008 filed on behalf of appellant Firoz Rizvi in Cr.A. No. 854/2008, I.A. No. 1/2008 filed on behalf of appellant Nasibuddin in Cr.A. No. 879/2008 and I.A. No. 1/2008 filed on behalf of appellant Mammu @ Mammo @ Noortaki in Cr.A. No. 909/2008, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, during the pendency of these appeals. The appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI. for 6 months. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 21-6-2002 at about 13.45 hours complainant Yogesh and other employees of laxmi Mahila Nagrik Sahkari Bank proceeded to its main branch carrying Rs.12 lakhs in cash in a suitcase by Maruti van. 5 unknown persons on the point of knife and country made pistol looted suitcase containing Rs. 12 lakhs and fled. Report was lodged at about 14.10 hours on the same day. The complainant was sent for medical examination. During investigation, the appellants were arrested. On the basis of their memorandums, knife, country made pistol, suitcase and articles purchased from the looted amount were seized. Test identification parade was conducted where the appellants were duly identified by the witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were arrested in the month of February, 2004 i.e. 19 months after the incident. They have been convicted by the trial Court on the basis of evident of Yogesh (PW -8), Akhilesh Kumar Sharma (PW -I) and Jitendra Verma (PW -15) as also on the basis of evidence of Executive Magistrate who conducted test identification parade where the appellants were allegedly identified by the eyewitnesses and that the witnesses also identified the appellants during trial. Referring to the evidence of Jitendra Verma (PW -15), it was argued that the witnesses were called in the Police Station where the appellants were detained and they had seen the appellants and, therefor identification in TI parade and their identification during trial looses its significance. Other articles recovered on the memorandums of the appellants are commonly found in the market. The recovery of suitcase is also immaterial, as only on suitcase was placed for identification at the time of TI parade. Other articles recovered on the memorandums of the appellants are commonly found in the market. The recovery of suitcase is also immaterial, as only on suitcase was placed for identification at the time of TI parade. They further argued that the appellants have already been acquitted of the offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Identification after 19 months of the incident is improbable and doubtful. The appellants are in jail since 29-1-2004 and 4-2-2004 respectively and thus they have already completed 5 years in jail and disposal of appeals may take some time. In the circumstances, they may be released on bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail applications. It was vehemently argued that the appellants have been correctly identified by the eyewitnesses. Complainant Yogesh has given description of the appellants in the first information report (Ex.-P/1 0). He has also mentioned in the report that he is in a position to identify the accused persons, as he had occasion to see them. There are other cases of similar nature against the appellants. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the fact that the appellants were arrested after more than 19 months of the incident, their conviction is based on testimony of the eyewitnesses, who identified the appellants in test identification parade after 19 months and also considering that there is evidence available on record that a witness had visited the Police Station while the appellants were detained there and they were shown by the Police to the said witness and further considering that the appellants are in jail since 29-1-2004 and 4-2-2004 respectively, and they have also undergone 5 years of the jail sentence and that the disposal of appeals make take some time, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to admit the accused/appellants to bail. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. Execution of the sentence imposed on appellants namely, Nasibuddin, Firoz Rizvi and Mammu @ Mammo @ Noortaki shall remain suspended and they are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with 2 local solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11th May 2009. 25,000/- with 2 local solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11th May 2009. They shall thereafter appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to them by the said Court, till the disposal of these appeals. Application Allowed.