Raju @ Mohd. Mintoo vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State.

In brief the prosecution case is that on 28.2.10 at about 12:05 P.M., the police party arrested four accused persons including the applicant and from their possession, counterfeit currency notes were recovered.

Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated by the police. On the other hand, learned Addl. GA while opposing the bail application submitted that on 28.2.1010 at Dehradun, Esteem Car No. HR26-G-8213 was got stopped by the police party at Dehradun in which four persons were sitting and from their possession, counterfeit currency was recovered. He further submitted that from the possession of the application, 40 counterfeit notes, each Rs. 1,000/ - in total Rs. 40,000/- counterfeit currency was recovered. He further submitted that besides the above, original notes amounting to Rs. 27,100/- were also been recovered. He further submitted that even there is no reason for false implication of the accused by the police because of any enmity. He further submitted that the offence of keeping the counterfeit notes is of a grave nature. He further submitted that in FIR No. 141/09 Us/ 489B/34 IPC, State v. Rajesh @ Mohd. Minut, PS Sector-10 Gurgaon, Haryana, the applicant has been declared as a proclaimed offender by the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 26.3.2010. He further submitted that another case, case crime No. 116/08 u/s 420/489A/489B IPC, PS Rajendra Park, Gurgaon, Haryana, has also been registered against the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant is a habitual criminal, who is involved in commission of the same type of offences again and again.

After seeing the criminal history of the applicant, it reveals that besides the present case, already two cases relating to same type of offences are pending against the applicant, which reveals that the applicant is a habitual offender of committing the same type of offences again and again.

Having considered the above-said facts and circumstances, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, perusing the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and particularly considering the criminal history of the applicant which reveals that the applicant is a habitual criminal for committing the same type of offences and even he has been declared a proclaimed offender, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail.

Bail application is rejected accordingly. Rejected.