Amar Saran, J.@mdashThis is a second bail application, the first one was rejected by me by order dated 15.4.2009.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.
On an information received from an informer that the applicant and one another person were in possession of some counterfeit currency notes, a trap was laid and the aplicant was apprehended from the spot and from his possession 71 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ were recovered. The other accused ran away from the spot.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has now been in jail for about one year and four months since 1.12.2008. However, his main submission is that on the allegations only an offence under section 489C IPC is disclosed because at best the applicant could be said to be in possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine. These offences are punishable with a term which may extend to seven years or with fine, or with both and the said offences are also bailable. No offence under section 489B IPC is made out as there was no evidence of the applicant selling or buying or receiving from any other person or using as genuine any forged or counterfeit currency notes.
2. It may be noted that section 489B IPC also includes a clause that where a person "otherwise traffics in" counterfeit currency, will be liable under the said section, which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with a term which may extend to ten years and fine and is a nonbailable offence. Section 489B IPC refers to cases where thee is a systematic dealing and trafficking in a large number of notes or where the circumstances suggest a more complex operation for passing off counterfeit currency notes as genuine and is thus, distinguishable from section 489C IPC where the currency notes are simply in possession of the accused who knowing their forged or counterfeit character, intends to use them as genuine. The transaction under section 489C IPC are more of a one time affair and lack the wider ramifications of a case of trafficking in currency notes, which is covered under section 489B IPC.
3. The mere fact that such a substantial quantity of notes were recovered from the applicant at about 1.30 AM on 1.12.2008 after an information was received from an informer that the aplicant was dealing in counterfeit currency notes, the notes were in one series 5QL147971, the inscribed portrait of Mahatma Gandhi in the white portion of the notes was missing. The applicant also confessed before the police that they had been given the notes by one Vikki and he was engaged in passing off the notes as genuine in the market. Even though the confessional statement before the police may or may not be admissible, but the position that recovery of such a substantial quantity of currency notes from the applicant could only prima facie lead to an inference that he was at least engaged in "otherwise trafficking" in the said notes. Also this point was available to the applicant when the first bail was heard, but this submission was not raised.
4. In a crime such as the present, I have already observed when I rejected the first bail application, the gravity of the allegation of dealing in counterfeit notes, which leads to the break down of the economy must be taken into consideration, hence no ground for bail is made out.
I see no ground also to allow the second bail to the applicant merely because the he has been in jail for more than one year and four months. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However, the trial of the applicant is expedited. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
