Uttarakhand High Court
Nitin Gangwar @ Bittu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2024
Nitin Gangwar @ Bittu ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. V.K. Guglani, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment
and order dated 04.06.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No.
182 of 2016, State Vs. Nitin Gangwar @ Bittu, by the court
of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellant has been
acquitted of the charge under Section 489B IPC. He has
been convicted under Sections 489C IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years
with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to
undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month.
The appellant has sought bail in this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution case, on
22.05.2016, total 600 counterfeit currency notes were
recovered from the possession of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the independent witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that other
witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
6. As per the impugned judgment and order, the
prosecution has been able to prove the case against the
appellant to the extent that the counterfeit currency notes
were recovered from the possession of the appellant, but he
has been acquitted of the charge under Section 489B IPC.
7. It may be noted that the appellant has been
convicted under Section 489C IPC, as according to the
prosecution, it is proved that he was in possession of the
counterfeit currency notes, but the impugned order, in para
37 records that the prosecution has failed to prove that the
appellant was trying to use the counterfeit currency notes
as genuine. Mere possession, per se, is not punishable
under Section 489C IPC. It requires something more. The
possession should be with the intention to use the same as
genuine. Can intention be presumed? This and many more
questions would find answer in this appeal.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
this matter requires deliberation.
9. Admit.
10. LCR has already been received.
11. List this matter on 11.05.2025 for final hearing.
Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2024
12. Having considered, this Court is of the view it is a
case in which the execution of sentence should be
suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
13. The bail application is allowed.
14. The sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
15. The appellant be released on bail, during the
pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal bond
and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
20.02.2025
Jitendra
