Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sujoy Mondal & Anr vs Unknown on 22 January, 2021
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
22.01.2021 Mithun Sl. No.27.
D/L. Ct.No.30 CRA/265/2020 with I.A.No: CRAN/1/2020 In re: An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail in connection with appeal.
In the matter of : Sujoy Mondal & Anr.
...the appellants.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Adhikari, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Ghosh, Adv.
...for the appellants.
Mr.P.K.Datta, APP, Mr.Santanu Deb Roy, Adv.
...for the State.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants/petitioners that out of nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, five public witnesses were declared hostile. The four other witnesses who supported the prosecution's case are witnesses from the police department. There evidence cast a doubt on the very fact of search and seizure in presence of them as P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated in their evidence that the police officer (Mejo babu) showed fake currency notes and stated to them that the said currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellants. Thus, the seizure of fake 2 currency notes were not made in presence of the said witnesses. Only on the basis of the solitary evidence of the police officer, who is also the informant of this case, the accused persons were convicted for committing offence under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they should be released on bail.
Learned P.P.-in-Charge, on the other hand, submits that the police personnel corroborated the evidence of search and seizure and recovery of fake currency notes from the possession of the accused persons. Secondly, those seized currency notes were examined scientifically and a report was submitted by the concerned authority as to the forged and fake character of the seized currency notes. In view of such circumstances, the learned P.P.-in- Charge has raised serious objection against the prayer for bail.
I have carefully perused the impugned judgment and the evidence adduced by the witnesses. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it transpires that they accompanied the police officers to Ranibagan where the accused persons were apprehended and search and seizure was made. Therefore, it cannot be said that fake currency notes were seized in the absence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. They are police personnel. No suggestion has been made to the effect during cross-examination of the 3 said two witnesses that they had previous enmity with the appellants. The appellants were not only convicted for committing offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code but also under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code for using the fake currency notes in market for illegal purposes. Considering the materials, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Prayer for bail is, thus, rejected.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)