Karnataka High Court
Salman. M. S. vs State By Mudigere Police on 15 April, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1627 OF 2021
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.706 OF 2021
IN CRL.P.NO.1627/2021
BETWEEN
SALMAN M.S.
S/O. SHAKEEL AHMED A.
@ ADUGE SHAKEEL,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
VEGETABLE MERCHANT,
RESIDING AT CHATRADA MAIDANA,
MUDIGERE TOWN,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVIKUMAR N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY MUDIGERE POLICE
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
2
IN CRL.P.NO.706/2021
BETWEEN
PRAMOD V. JAIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VIMAL CHAND K.,
PEPPER BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT M.A. ROAD,
MUDIGERE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 550.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI M. NARAYANS REDDY, ADV.)
AND
STATE
REPRESENTED BY HCGP.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
THE STATE HOUSE OFFICER,
MUDIGERE POLICE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 550.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.103/2020
(S.C.NO.112/2020) OF MUDIGERE POLICE STATION,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 489A, 489C AND 489D READ WITH SECTION
34 OF THE IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.1627/2021 is filed by accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.706/2021 is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.103/2020 registered by Mudigere Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Thejumurthy, Head Constable working in Mudigere Police Station filed a complaint alleging that on 5.10.2020 when he was on the patrolling duty, he received a credible information that accused Nos.1 and 2 are illegally manufacturing the counterfeit notes in the godown owned by the mother of accused No.1 situated near house of one Cable Chandru on Gendehalli-Belur Road. After registering the case, the Police team along with Panchas raided the 4 godown of accused No.1 which belongs to mother of accused No.1. They said to be seized nine notes denomination of Rs.2,000/- each printed on A4 size paper, one EPSON company colour printer, 4 colour ink bottle, small scissors etc., under the Panchanama. Both the petitioners were arrested by the Police and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has also been filed. The petitioners also approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.
4. Sri Vivek S. Reddy, Senior Counsel for appearing for accused No.1 has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the case. Even on perusal of the records, the Police is said to have seized counterfeit currency notes on 5.10.2020 and it was sent to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for getting report on 18.11.2020. But the report of the RBI has been shown date as 12.11.2020. Even otherwise on perusal of the 5 report of the RBI which shows that five sealed envelopes have been received for examination on 3.3.2020 almost eight months prior to the present date of crime. The report has been issued in respect of some other case but not pertaining to this case. Therefore, the opinion of the RBI cannot be considered for implicating the accused in this case. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment with life. The petitioner is in custody from 5.10.2020. He is having a widow mother, wife and young children. He is in custody for more than six months. Charge-sheet has already been filed. His presence may not be required for the purpose of investigation. Absolutely, there is no case made out against this petitioner for having involved in the offence.
5. Sri Ravi Kumar N.R., learned counsel for accused No.2 has contended that the name of accused No.2 is not found in FIR and his name was mentioned after his apprehension. In fact, accused No.2 is a vegetable vendor. The papers which was seized by the Police is in A4 6 size which cannot be used for printing counterfeit currency notes. The Epson colour printer was also seized which was used for taking print outs, Xerox copies and the numbers mentioned in all the counterfeit currency notes, it is like duplicate paper notes which is used for the purpose of selling it in the stationary shop. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the accused persons have either printed the currency notes or possession of the counterfeit currency notes and the offence may attract Section 489E of the IPC says that making or using documents resembling currency notes or bank notes which is punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees. In fact, four notes were seized which are genuine notes. Therefore, prayed for granting bail to accused No.2.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
7
7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the Police is said to have registered a case against accused No.1 and another unknown person and thereafter, the Police visited the godown which belong to the mother of accused No.1 on 5.10.2020 and they have said to be seized counterfeit currency notes which is printed on the A4 size papers, Epson colour printer, Ink, small scissors etc. The petitioners have remanded to the judicial custody. It is pertinent to note in respect of the report issued by the Police while filing charge-sheet. Learned senior counsel brought to the notice of the Court that the opinion of the RBI dated 12.11.2020 which reveals that the reference number of the FIR has been mentioned with date of offence and provisions of law. The reference also mentioned about the date as 13.10.2020 while receiving the notes or five sealed envelopes, but the date of examination which is mentioned on 3.3.2020. They have examined and given a finding at Sl.No.1 Total nine notes of Rs.2,000 denomination are said to be suspected notes and 8 are not genuine and are low quality counterfeit Indian Bank notes and at Sl.No.2 it is mentioned that total four notes are genuine Indian Bank notes and Scientific Officer who gave an opinion has mentioned at the end of the page that "It is requested to consider the provisions laid down under Section 292(1) & (2) and 293(1) of code of criminal procedure, 1973 and EXEMPT summoning of the undersigned in the honorable court wherever the court deems fit; and kindly consider further proceedings based on this report."
8. On perusal of the said opinion which clearly reveals that five sealed envelopes were received and they were examined on 3.3.2020. The alleged offence in this case is the case registered and seized the counterfeit currency notes on 5.10.2020. Though dates are mentioned as 12.11.2020 on the top but the examination is said to be conducted on 3.3.2020 where the date may mistakenly mentioned or it is genuine date which has to be established during the trial. That apart, learned counsel 9 for accused No.2 also brought to the notice that at Annexures-I, II, III where the note numbers were mentioned as ODQ 696683 is of five notes, No.4FV 958375 is of two notes, No.4FV 958374 of one note of and No.8BF 289596 of 2,000 denomination and denomination of the same number. Again it was mentioned 350 quantity and only front side printed, both side printed in the same number of ten notes and only front side printed one both sides of one note. On perusal of the same, it cannot be said that the numbers are one and the same. The paper is also A4 size and Epson printer and also says that low quality paper cannot be used for counterfeit currency notes. However, the notes were duplicate and notes were meant to have selling in the stationery shop. The Police have already investigated the matter and filed charge- sheet but in view of the report and examination of notes dated 3.3.2020 as held by the learned senior counsel which is much prior to the date of offence. The report has also received by the Police on 18.11.2020 where there is some error in the date. The Co-ordinate Bench of this 10 Court in Crl.P.No.7151/2020 C/w Crl.P.No.7233/2020 dated 2.12.2020 in similar cases has granted bail to the accused persons. The accused is in custody for more than six moths and charge-sheet has also been filed. Therefore, without expressing any opinion regarding the report of the RBI, I am of the view that by imposing some stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioners no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.1627/2021 filed by accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.706/2021 filed by accused No.1 are allowed.
The trial Court is directed to release the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.112/2020 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) 11 each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;
(ii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly; and
(iv) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court.
SD/-
JUDGE GBB