Inderjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 21 dated 5.2.2021, under Sections 489 and 489-A IPC, registered at Police Station City 2 Mansa,

District Mansa.

On 5.2.2021, the Counter Intelligence Party informed ASI-Shamsher Singh that Pargat Singh @ Jitti and Raj Rani are dealing with fake currency.

They were coming from Thuthianwali Road towards City Mansa. Acting upon the information, Naka was set up. One man and a woman were seen

coming. On seeing the police, they threw away the bundles of currency notes but they were nabbed. They disclosed their names as Pargat Singh and

Raj Rani. In the first packet total 100 currency notes with No. 6WT321911, in second packet total 100 currency notes with No. 6WT321911, in third

packet total 100 currency notes with No. 4QF891201, in fourth packet total 100 currency notes with No. 4QF891201, in fifth packet total 100 currency

notes with No. 4QF891201, in six packet total 100 currency notes with No. 4QF891201 amounting to Rs.4,75,000/-counterfeit currency in the

denomination of Rs.500/- were recovered.

During investigation, the accused named Inderjit Singh (petitioner) stating that he had kept the counterfeit currency at their residence when he was

apprehended in another case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The statement made in the police custody has no evidentiary

value. The contention is that there is contradiction to the effect that as per the statement of the accused, the petitioner was arrested in another FIR

from their house at Mansa whereas petitioner in FIR No. 17 dated 17.1.2021, registered at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar, was

arrested from Mohali.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. She submits that there is recovery of Rs.4,75,000/- of counterfeit

currency. The petitioner is specifically named by the co-accused. The custodial interrogation is necessary. She further submits that in another FIR, at

the instance of the petitioner there is recovery of counterfeit notes.

It would not be appropriate at this stage to go into the issue of evidentiary value of the disclosure statement. There is gravity in alleged offence, it is

not only violation of the provisions of IPC but hits the basic economy of the country. The circulation of the counterfeit currency has far reaching

affects concerning national security also. There is no reason forthcoming to even prima facie explain as to why the co-accused would name the

petitioner. The recovery of counterfeit currency at the instance of the petitioner in FIR No. 17 atleast is an indicator towards antecedents of the

petitioner. There is need of thorough probe, if in such a case the petitioner is clothed with pre-arrest bail, the requirement of thorough investigation

would be defeated.

The variation with regard to place of arrest pointed out in itself would not be enough for allowing the prayer of the petitioner. The effect of alleged

variation would be a subject-matter of trial. The petition is dismissed.

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.