Karnataka High Court
Farooq @ Riyaz Ahmed Hospete vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6820/2013
BETWEEN:
Farooq @ Riyaz Ahmed Hospete
@ Riyaz Ahmed Tarkari
S/o. late Abdul Sattar,
Aged about 44 years,
R/o. No. CHN-31,
Sattar Manzil,
Near Telephone Exchange,
Muslim Galli, Sirsi Town,
Uttar Kannada District-581 041. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. Shaikh Saoud, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Police Inspector,
CCB/OCW,
(J.C. Nagar Police Station)
Bangalore, Through
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr. No.108/2013 of CCB/OCW, J.C.Nagar P.S.,
Bangalore city for the offence P/U/S 489A, 489B and
489C of IPC.
This Criminal Petition having been heard and
reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement of
orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.108/2013.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the averments in the complaint are that on 31.7.2013 at 10.30 a.m. when the complainant was in the office, he received credible information that two persons who are in possession of forged counterfeit currency notes are coming in a black Activa Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-04-HK-5742 for circulating the same near Jinadh house No.10, Miller road, near the compound of Unit 3 Ological College, J.C.Nagar. Immediately, he informed the same to the higher authorities and along with panch witnesses and his staff, went to the said spot at 11.00 a.m. and hided themselves. At 12.00 noon two persons came to the said spot on motorcycle and got down there. The pillion rider was holding one bag on his back and he got confirmed by their behaviour and immediately conducted raid and arrested those persons. They are said to be one Fazalur Rehman and Mohammed Fahad i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2. They were found in possession of fake currency notes in order to circulate the same as genuine currency notes. He seized 19 bundles containing hundred notes having face value of Rs.1000/-. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered and the accused were arrested.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner-accused No.3 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the petitioner was not at all present when the raid was conducted and only on the basis of the alleged statement made by accused Nos.1 and 2 this petitioner has been arrested. He has also submitted that it is not sufficient for the prosecution to show the seizure of the alleged counterfeit currency notes, but it is to be proved that with the knowledge that they are counterfeit currency notes, they have circulated the same. It is further submitted that petitioner is totally innocent and he is not at all involved in any of the alleged offences. The investigation of the case is already completed. By imposing any reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to bail. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) 2001 AIR SCW 4051 in the case of Umashanker Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 5
(ii) 2011 Crl.L.J (NOC) 199 (Bombay) in the case of Shashikant Gulabchand Bora Vs. State of Maharashtra.
(iii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court rendered in Crl.A.No.348/2012 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8995/2011 in the case of Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta Vs. CBI and another,
(iv) Order dated 8.9.2011 passed in Writ Petition (HC) No.121/2011 by the High Court.
5. As against this, the learned Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that from the present petitioner ten counterfeit currency notes were seized in the presence of panch witnesses and the Investigating Officer has also recorded voluntary statement of the petitioner under which the counterfeit notes and two mobile phones were seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is involved in many cases of circulating counterfeit currency notes and he is having criminal background. If he is released on bail, again he will involve in the commission of similar offences and he will 6 also tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he submitted to reject the bail petition.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and all the investigation papers produced by the learned Government Pleader in the case.
7. The materials produced prima facie goes to show that alleged counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of the present petitioner. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there must be material to show that the petitioner-accused was circulating the alleged counterfeit currency notes with the knowledge that they are counterfeit, there is an averment in the complaint that they were possessing the counterfeit currency notes and were circulating the same to other persons in order to earn money. Even in the opinion report dated 18.9.2013 obtained from the Reserve Bank of India, it is 7 mentioned that Annexure-1 enclosed (packet 1 to 21) and in the result column it is mentioned that sample notes are not genuine Indian Bank notes. Apart from this, a perusal of the order passed by the lower Court makes it clear that there are many other criminal cases against the present petitioner regarding possession and circulation of the counterfeit currency notes, which shows the antecedents of the petitioner. Therefore, there is every force in the submission made by learned Government Pleader that if released on bail, the petitioner may involve in the commission of the similar offences, which will affect the economy of the country.
8. The decisions as referred to above, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rendered after full fledged trial and also when the matters are pending in appeal and not passed while considering the bail applications. Hence, the said decision will not come to the aid and assistance of the petitioner in allowing 8 the petition. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp