AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 233 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 510 of 2024, under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, on information having been received on 23.06.2024, counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the applicant, which he wanted to use.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as per the prosecution case, the applicant did not use any counterfeit currency notes. It is the case of mere recovery. The witness who said that the applicant wanted to use the counterfeit currency notes, his statement is not reliable because no test identification parade was conducted.
Learned State counsel would submit that one witness has stated that the applicant wanted to use the counterfeit currency notes, but he admits that no test identification parade was done to confirm that it is the applicant who wanted to use the counterfeit currency notes, as genuine.
Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned