RIYAZUDDIN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks admission to statutory bail under Sec. 167(2) r/w Sec. 439 and 482 Cr.P.C. in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 228/2021, at PS Special Cell under Ss. 489B, 489C, 120B IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, the said FIR was registered on the basis of information received by the Special Cell on 29/8/2021 wherein the petitioner was apprehended along with fake Indian currency of Rs.20,000.00 in the denomination of Rs.2000.00 and Rs.500.00 respectively. During his search, one original Aadhaar Card having No. 4099 9764 2654 with particulars as Riyazuddin s/o Zahooruddin r/o 2590, Sir Sayyed Ahmed Road, Darya Ganj Delhi-110002 was recovered along with two mobile phones, PAN card, driving license. During the search of his Honda City car bearing No. DL 9CU 0473 at the spot one colored photocopy of a forged Aadhaar card bearing No. 4382 3128 1964 having photograph of the petitioner but with different details mentioning one Rohit s/o Sunil r/o House No. 512, Laxmi Nagar Delhi was also recovered. Later during the police remand, additional fake Indian currency worth Rs.5000.00 was recovered at his instance from the rented accommodation. It transpired that the petitioner was also absconding in another case of fake Indian currency registered with vide FIR No. 271/2021 under Ss. 489B, 489C, 34 IPC at PS. Jafrabad. Pursuant to the apprehension of the petitioner on 30/8/2021, he was remanded to judicial custody on 4/9/2021 and since then has been in jail except for sometime in 2022 when he was on interim bail on the ground of his wife suffering from brain tumor. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 26/10/2021. However, it was stated that further investigation was still pending and upon completion of the investigation final charge sheet would be filed under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

(2.) As per the first charge sheet, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of offences punishable under Ss. 471, 489B, 489C, 120B of the IPC. The petitioner's grievance is that till that time no offence under Sec. 420 IPC was made out and on 18/4/2022 when the learned Trial Court summoned the ACP in this regard on the ground that having discovered the forged Aadhaar card on the basis of which apparently a mobile phone had been procured by the petitioner including room booked at the Noida International Hotel at Sector 11 Noida, it was discovered that no investigation had been done. It further seemed to have been scuttled midway and a'half-baked charge sheet has been filed'. When the ACP appeared on 19/4/2022, he made a categorical statement that further investigation was still pending and a supplementary challan would be filed soon. Consequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 23/5/2022 for addition of offences punishable under Sec. 419 and 420 IPC and the learned Trial Court took cognizance of offence punishable only under Sec. 420 IPC on 6/6/2022. Accordingly, an application dtd. 20/5/2022 was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. essentially contending that there was filing of an incomplete charge-sheet since the offence under Sec. 420 had been included later. The said application was rejected by the learned ASJ vide the impugned order, noting that the original offence for which the petitioner had been arrested was for fake Indian currency which was recovered from his possession, for which the charge-sheet had been duly and completely filed within the limitation period. But since during the investigation it was also revealed that he used a forged and fabricated Aadhaar card, further investigation was carried out and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed. The learned ASJ distinguished the decision of Tunde Gbaja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 450 on which the petitioner had heavily relied upon to state that this was not the case where the charge-sheet had been filed in piecemeal but was a case when the main charge-sheet had been filed but a supplementary charge-sheet was required because of subsequent investigation revealing another offence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that filing a charge-sheet for only some of the offences and stating there-in that investigation was pending with respect to others, cannot amount to a complete charge-sheet depriving a person of statutory bail. Investigation for leftover offences cannot be equated with a situation where there is pending investigation of existing offences for which a charge sheet is filed and then a supplementary charge sheet gets filed along with corroborative evidence like an FSL report. Reliance was also placed on the following paragraphs of the Tunde Gbaja (supra):