Uttarakhand High Court
Bahper Ahmed @ Bahar Ahmed vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 1132 of 2022
BahPer Ahmed @ Bahar Ahmed ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Triloki Nath Rathore and Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocates for
the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant BahPer Ahmed @ Bahar Ahmed is in
judicial custody in Case Crime No.06 of 2022, under
Sections 489-B, 489-C, 120-B IPC, Police Station
Chakrata, District Dehradun. He has sought his release
on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 05.03.2022, the police
got an information that two persons (1 male and 1 female)
are trying to use counterfeit currency notes in the market
as genuine. Both, the applicant and the co-accused were
spotted in a car bearing registration no. DL7CS 3439.
Sensing the fear, the applicant and the co-accused tried
to run away, but they were apprehended. It is the case in
the FIR that from the possession of the applicant, total
Rs. 4,68,000/- were recovered and from the possession of
the co-accused Premlata, total Rs. 2,00,000/- were
recovered. When questioned, the applicant and the co-
accused revealed that they had brought the counterfeit
currency notes from Delhi. They wanted to use them as
genuine.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the case is fit for bail because there is no
forensic report to confirm that the counterfeit currency
notes were, in fact, genuine. It is argued that the
applicant and the co-accused wanted to purchase a
property in Chakrata. They had Rs. 1,40,000/- with them
for paying it as earnest money to the vendor, but the
money was snatched from them by the police and false
case has been implanted. It is argued that there is no
independent witness. The applicant is in custody since
06.03.2022.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for the applicant relied upon the judgments in the cases
of Manish Solanki alias Bansi Vs. State of Rajasthan,
(2019)4 SCC 340, and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2011 (4)
JCC 2913.
6. In the case of Manish Solanki (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in fact, did not lay down any law.
Having considered the period of custody, in that case, the
Court observed that, "Further custody of the accused
will come in the way of the conduct of the trial that
will have to be held against him." and granted bail.
7. In fact, learned counsel for the applicant would
argue that the Right to Life and Liberty, as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has to be
respected and the applicant deserves to be released on
bail. On that aspect, the principles of law, as laid down in
the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) has been referred to.
In Para 26 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that, "When the undertrial prisoners are
detained in jail custody to an indefinite period,
Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every
person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy
trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in
the present case......."
8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel
would submit that the applicant and the co-accused
wanted to use the counterfeit currency notes as genuine;
when information was received, they were arrested. It is
argued that, in fact, two witnesses, i.e. Munit Doseja and
Keshar Singh Chauhan, have stated about it. Munit
Doseja is a businessman, where one of the accused had
tried to use counterfeit currency notes of 2000/-
denomination. It was this witness, who detected it. He,
thereafter, notified all the businessmen of the locality
through WhatsApp group about use of counterfeit
currency notes.
9. The Court wanted to know from learned
counsel for the applicant as to who was the vendor, from
whom the applicant and the co-accused wanted to
purchase the property? Who was the property dealer?
Whom the applicant and the co-accused wanted to pay
the alleged money? Learned counsel for the applicant
would reply that he is not briefed on all those questions.
10. It is the specific case of the police that the
applicant wanted to use the counterfeit currency notes as
genuine. There are 2 witnesses, who have stated about it.
In fact, one of the witnesses, as stated hereinabove, told it
to the Investigating Officer that sensing the fear of using
counterfeit currency notes, he notified all the
businessmen of the locality through WhatsApp group.
11. Making use of counterfeit currency notes
knowingly is definitely a very serious offence against the
economy of the country.
12. Having considered the entirety of facts, this
Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
12. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
10.11.2022
Ravi Bisht
