Virender Singh 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. 99 of 2011 dated 27.07.2011, registered at Police Station, Shahpur, under Sections 489-B, 489-C, 34 IPC.

It has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The recovery as mentioned in the FIR has been planted upon the petitioner by the police for reasons best known to them. The petitioner does not have history of any criminal activity. It has been submitted that no offence u/s 489-B IPC is made out against the petitioner. There is no evidence that petitioner was intending to use the alleged counterfeit currency as genuine. The offence u/s 489-C IPC is bailable. The petitioner is in custody since long. The further custody of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed and bail application has been opposed. It has been stated that on 27.07.2011 at about 6.15 P.M., Virender Kumar informed on telephone that two boys from Punjab with counterfeit currency notes have been apprehended near his shop. On this, Dalip Singh ASI and others reached the spot and statement of Virender Kumar u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has stated that on 27.07.2011 at about 6.00 P.M., an unknown customer came to his shop and demanded perfume. He handed over perfume worth Rs. 65/- to said customer, who gave currency note of Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant after deducting Rs. 65/- returned Rs. 935/- to that person.

The complainant checked the currency note with more care and found it to be counterfeit. The complainant rushed towards that person who was about to sit in his car. He informed the police also. On inquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Gurpal Singh and other person who was sitting in the car disclosed his name Virender Singh. The said two persons had come to bazaar for using the counterfeit currency notes. On this, case u/s 489-B, 489-C, 34 IPC was registered. Both the accused were arrested.

The petitioner Virender Singh made a disclosure statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and got recovered Rs. 10,000/- fake currency notes . He also told that three fake currency notes have already been used in Shahpur bazaar. In all Rs. 18,000/- fake currency notes, Rs. 4,000/- fake currency notes used in the bazaar by the accused and Rs. 27,720/- genuine currency notes were recovered. On completion of the investigation, challan has been submitted in the Court on 17.10.2011 and now the case is fixed on 01.02.2012 for prosecution evidence. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the police file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no case u/s 489-B IPC is made out against the petitioner. The offence u/s 489-C IPC is bailable. On the contrary, it has been submitted on behalf of the State that Rs. 10,000/- fake currency notes were recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the petitioner. The accused have already used three fake currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination each in Shahpur bazaar and when co-accused Gurpal Singh used fourth Rs. 1000/- fake currency note for purchasing perfume at that time both the accused were caught and apprehended. In this way, at this stage, it cannot be said that no case u/s 489-B IPC is made out against the petitioner.

The cases of circulation of fake currency notes are increasing which is a serious threat to the economy of the country. The petitioner was not found in possession of isolated fake currency note. The petitioner and his co-accused were found in possession of Rs. 18,000/- fake currency notes in addition to Rs. 4,000/- fake currency notes which they have already used as genuine in the market. In view of seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The case has already been fixed for prosecution evidence on 01.02.2012. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.