Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. J. Vanitha @ Thangam, was accused No.4 in Special Case No.785 of 2018 pending before the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA cases) at Bengaluru. The case arose from FIR No.RC-26/2018/NIA/DLI registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for offences punishable under Sections 489B, 489C, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations pertained to the possession and circulation of fake Indian currency notes. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 8-8-2018, and a sum of Rs.4,34,000/- in fake currency was recovered from them. Based on the disclosure statement of accused No.2, a raid was conducted at the appellant's house, and fake currency notes worth Rs.2,50,000/- were recovered. The appellant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Special Court, which was rejected on 26-12-2018. Aggrieved, she filed the present appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act). The main contention of the appellant was that the material on record only attracted Section 489C IPC (possession of fake currency) and not the other offences, and that co-accused Nos.1 to 3 had already been granted bail by the trial court. The High Court observed that the trial court had not considered the aspect of parity while rejecting the bail application. The court noted that the role attributed to the appellant was similar to that of the co-accused who had been granted bail, and there was no direct evidence linking her to the conspiracy beyond the recovery. Applying the principle of parity, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the appellant to be released on bail on such terms as the trial court may impose.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity - Sections 489B, 489C, 120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC - The appellant, accused No.4, sought bail on the ground that co-accused Nos.1 to 3 had already been granted bail by the trial court. The High Court held that the principle of parity applies as the role attributed to the appellant was similar to that of the co-accused, and there was no direct evidence linking her to the conspiracy beyond the recovery of fake currency from her house. The court allowed the appeal and granted bail. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Law - Bail - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - The appeal was filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act against the rejection of bail by the Special Court. The High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order and granted bail, noting that the trial court had not considered the aspect of parity. (Paras 1, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, accused No.4, is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, in a case involving recovery of fake currency notes and allegations of conspiracy.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26-12-2018 passed by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA cases) at Bengaluru is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on such terms as the trial court may impose.
Law Points
- Bail
- Parity
- Fake Indian Currency Notes
- National Investigation Agency Act
- Section 489B
- 489C
- 120B IPC
- Section 21(4) NIA Act
- Section 439 CrPC
