Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

04. Sh. Amit Gupta, Ld. AAG for respondent, per contra, has opposed the bail by projecting arguments, that petitioner/accused is involved in commission of offences u/ss 489-B/489-D/120-B of IPC which deal with counterfeit currency, and its circulation in the market could give rise to existence of a parallel economy which would be highly detrimental to the growth of the nation as the same affects the society as a whole, and in such cases the harm would be caused not only to an individual or to few individuals, and the adverse impact of trafficking and counterfeit currency in large scale would be disastrous. It is argued, that the approach of granting bail in such cases would encourage the petitioner/accused to indulge in similar offences again and again, moreover, a wrong signal/message will go to the society as a whole, and the act of petitioner/accused is an attempt to destabilize the economy of the country by circulating the counterfeit currency in the market, the offences indicted against petitioner/accused are economic offences which are detrimental for the economy of the country, the incarceration of the accused in the Judicial Custody is not a ground for granting bail to him. Ld. AAG to support his arguments, has relied upon the decisions (i) Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another, (decided on 5 December, 2019 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1843 of 2019 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6339 of 2019), (ii) Pramod Kumar Saxena vs Union of India and others, (decided on 19 September, 2008 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) 58 of 2007 and (iii) E.P. Ahammed vs State of Kerala (decided by Kerala High Court on 19 February 2010 in Bail Application No. 633 of 2010.