Anil Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 164 of 2011 dated 7.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC.

It has been stated that petitioner was arrested on 7.8.2011. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 7.8.2011 the complainant Rajesh Kumar, Shopkeeper at Chamunda informed the police that one person had purchased one watch from one shopkeeper Tenzin and gave him note of Rs. 1000/- which appeared to be fake one. The police came on the spot and conducted search of the petitioner and on his personal search 26 fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- and 7 fake currency notes of Rs. 500/- total amounting to Rs. 29,500/- were recovered. It has been stated that the petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is in custody for the last several months. The petitioner is the only bread earner of the family with aged and ailing parents. The investigation in the case is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court. The trial of the case will take some time. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the direction of this Court. The petitioner earlier filed bail applications which have been dismissed by the learned Courts below. Prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The bail application has been opposed by filing status report. It has been stated that on 7.8.2011 HC Sukesh Kumar and others were on duty in Chamunda fair. Rajesh Kumar, Shopkeeper on mobile informed HHC Raj Kumar that a person using fake currency notes has been caught. The police reached the spot and from the pocket of the pant of the petitioner 26 fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- and from the purse 7 notes of Rs. 500/- total amounting to Rs. 29,500/- were recovered. On the statement of Tenzin u/s 154 Cr.P.C. the case was registered. On completion of investigation the challan has been submitted in the court on 2.11.2011. The case was lastly fixed on 24.2.2011 in the Court of FTC, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharamshala. The suspect Mukhtiar Singh has been kept in column No. 12 but he has absconded. It was to be investigated from Mukhtiar Singh how fake currency he had given to Anil Kumar petitioner and from where he had brought the money. The petitioner appears to be habitual offender. He is resident of Punjab and in case released on bail, it will be difficult to procure his presence for trial in the court. He can influence the witnesses in case he is released on bail.

Heard and perused the police file. The petitioner has been found using fake currency and fake currency notes worth Rs. 29,500/- were recovered from the petitioner. It has been stated in the status report that only 6 PWs are left for examination for which dates have been fixed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharamshala on 26, 27.4.2012. It is not a case where an isolated note was recovered from the petitioner. In this case fake currency worth Rs. 29,500/- was recovered from the petitioner and petitioner was found using fake currency by purchasing a watch from the shopkeeper. The other suspect Mukhtiar Singh has absconded. The petitioner is resident of Punjab. The prosecution has apprehension that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he will abscond. It will be very difficult to procure his presence to face the trial. Only six PWs are left for examination for which the dates have already been fixed on 26, 27.4.2012. The fake currency is a very serious offence and it adversely affects the economy of the country. In the recent past the use of fake currency notes is increasing. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and the apprehension of the prosecution that it will be very difficult to procure the presence of the petitioner to face the trial, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is dismissed.

The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.