Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2024
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, Shivkumar Dige
2024:BHC-AS:6733-DB
:1: 3.ia-3380-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3380 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.868 OF 2018
Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Patil .....Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
-----
Ms. Anima Mishra, Advocate a/w. S.T. Pandey, Anuj Singh i/b.
SBG And Associates for the Applicant.
Smt. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 08th FEBRUARY, 2024
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking his release on bail during
pendency of Criminal Appeal No.868/2018. The Applicant had
earlier preferred an application for bail pending his appeal. At
that time the application was withdrawn as noted in the order
dated 13.8.2018 passed in Criminal Application No.1081/2018
in Criminal Appeal No.868/2018. By the same order, specific
liberty was granted to the Applicant to prefer a fresh application
1 of 6
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 18:26:48 :::
:2: 3.ia-3380-23.odt
for bail after a period of two years in the event the Appeal was
not heard.
2. Said order was passed on 13.8.2018. More than
two years have passed and yet the Appeal is not heard and
decided. In this view of the matter, liberty granted to the
Applicant has to be taken into consideration and, therefore, we
are entertaining the present Application.
3. The Applicant was the accused No.1 in Sessions
Case No.20/2015 before the Sessions Judge, Nashik. The
learned Judge vide his judgment and order dated 7.7.2018
convicted the Applicant and his co-accused Javed Maniyar for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-
B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E read with 34 of IPC. The major
punishment imposed on him was for imprisonment for life.
4. The Applicant has challenged that order in Criminal
Appeal No.868/2018, which is still pending for final disposal.
5. Heard Ms. Anima Mishra, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Smt. M.H. Mhatre, learned APP for the
2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 18:26:48 :::
:3: 3.ia-3380-23.odt
Respondent-State.
6. The prosecution case is that on 10.10.2014 the
police received the secrete information that two persons were to
come near Sainath Nagar, near Indiranagar, near Jogging Track,
Nashik with counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/-. The police
arranged to conduct raid. They called two panchas and one
bogus customer. All of them went to the spot. The raiding
party saw two persons at the spot. The bogus customer went
near them. After some time he gave the predetermined signal.
The raiding party rushed there. The co-accused of the Applicant
tried to run away. The Applicant and his co-accused were
caught at the spot. They were found to carry counterfeit
currency notes of Rs.100/- denominations amounting to
Rs.4,40,000/-. On this basis, the FIR was lodged. During
investigation, the Applicant led the police officers to a place
where the articles used for preparing this counterfeit notes were
stored. The panchnama was carried out and the articles, viz.,
computer, printer etc were seized from the spot. After
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the trial was
3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 18:26:48 :::
:4: 3.ia-3380-23.odt
conducted. During trial, eleven witnesses were examined
including the police officers, the panchas and the bogus
customer. The police officers and the panchas supported the
prosecution case. The bogus customer did not support the
prosecution case and was declared hostile.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
during trial, he was on bail. After his conviction, he was taken
into custody and he has spent six years of actual imprisonment
in jail. She submitted that at the highest the case does not
travel beyond Section 489-C of IPC. In any case, there are no
independent witnesses. The bogus customer has not supported
the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the Applicant
submitted that the house from where the articles were seized
did not stand in the Applicant's name and there was no
agreement to show that he was in possession of the said house.
8. Learned APP opposed these submissions. According
to her, all the offences are made out. The Applicant himself had
led the police officers to the place where the articles for making
the counterfeit notes were found. Learned APP further relied on
4 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 18:26:48 :::
:5: 3.ia-3380-23.odt
the evidence led by the police officers and the panchas. She has
particularly referred to the pancha's evidence to contend that
the counterfeit notes were prepared by the Applicant himself.
Therefore, all the offences are made out.
9. We have considered these submissions and in
particular we have perused the evidence of the pancha PW-4
Yogesh Saundane. In his substantive evidence, he has stated
that in the house shown by the Applicant he had seen the
scanner, a photocopying machine, a computer, a cutter and
blank papers. He has not referred to any fake currency notes in
the house. That is significant. Because other articles are
common articles and unless they were used in some manner in
producing the counterfeit notes they would be innocuous.
10. The bogus customer has not supported the
prosecution case and, therefore, there is a reasonable
possibility that offence under section 489-C of IPC only can
reasonably be proved against the Applicant which attracts the
maximum punishment of seven years; out of which the
Applicant is already in custody for more than six years.
5 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 18:26:48 :::
:6: 3.ia-3380-23.odt
11. In this view of the matter, the Applicant deserves to
be released on bail pursuant to the liberty granted to him by the
earlier order. Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.868/2018, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE,J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS) 6 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 18:26:48 :::