Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Wankhede vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2020
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1 MCRC No.22808/20 MCRC No.22808/2020 (Deepak Wankhede Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated : 11.8.2020 Shri Bhavdeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Puranik, learned counsel for the State.
Heard on the question of grant of bail through video conferencing.
This is an application made by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial.
Notice of this application was served on the State counsel. Case diary as per the direction of this Court has been produced and it has been perused.
The applicant is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 34 of the IPC registered with Police Station Palasia, Indore, in Crime No.30/2020.
The allegation against the present applicant is in respect of making of counterfeit currency notes and circulating them Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and that from the applicant printer has been seized but there is no connection between the printer and the seized currency notes. He further submits that the seizure has been made at Nagpur, whereas the witnesses are from Indore. He further submits that the memorandum of co-accused Suryapratap Singh was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but in that memorandum no details of use of the currency notes have been given. He further submits that co-accused Suryapratap Singh has been granted bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 MCRC No.22808/20 Learned counsel for the State opposing the bail application has submitted that the applicant had printed the counterfeit currency notes and the printing equipment has been seized from him. He has also submitted that the counterfeit currency notes of the value Rs.27,500/- have also been seized from the present applicant. He has pointed out that the printer, cutter etc. have been seized from the present applicant and against the co-accused Suryapratap Sngh there is no allegation of printing the counterfeit currency notes.
Having regard to the material which has been pointed out by counsel for the State and considering the seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out.
The M.Cr.C. is accordingly rejected. C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok/-
Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 2020.08.11 18:04:26 +05'30'