Asim Pandey And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2143 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Asim Pandey And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 February, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Bail Application (IA) No.01 of 2025
                             In
             Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2025

Asim Pandey and another                ...........Appellant/Applicant

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                              ........... Respondent



Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the appellant/applicant.
          Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.


                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the

judgment and order dated 20.01.2025, recorded in

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2016, State vs. Asim Pandey and

others, by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,

Rudrapur. By the impugned judgment and order, the

appellant has been convicted and sentenced under

Section 489-C IPC. The appellants Asim Pandey and

Mithun Pandey have preferred the bail application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Heard.

4. Admit.

5. Call for the LCR.

6. List for final hearing on 24.04.2025.

7. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.01 of 2025.

8. According to the prosecution case, on

27.08.2015, police had an information that some persons

are in the process of using counterfeit currency notes as

genuine in a liquor shop. Police spotted three persons,

who were in a queue in a liquor shop to purchase wine.

One of them give `500/- currency note to the salesman,

as it was the counterfeit currency notes, therefore, the

salesman returned it. Thereafter, all the three were

apprehended. According to the prosecution case appellant

no.1 Asim Pandey was trying to use the counterfeit

currency note as genuine.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that the salesman on the liquor shop PW3

Jamuna Prasad did not identify the appellants; one of the

salesmen PW4 Sudama has not supported the

prosecution case. Reference has been made to the

statements of the witnesses, certified copies of which,

have been filed. It is also submitted that the appellants

were on bail during trial.

10. Learned State counsel has no objections to the

certified copies as filed. She would submit that all the

police personnel PW1 Inspector Sushil Kumar, PW2

Jaswant Singh and PW7 Constable Pradeep Negi had

supported the prosecution case.

11. It may be noted that the appellants have been

convicted under Section 489-C IPC, as according the

prosecution, it is proved that they were in possession of

the counterfeit currency notes, but the impugned

judgment and order in para 39 records that the

prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants or any

of them were trying to use the counterfeit currency notes

as genuine. Mere possession per se is not punishable

under Section 489-C 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.

12. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should

be suspended and the applicants/appellants be enlarged

on bail.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. The execution of sentence, which is under

challenge in this appeal shall remain suspended during

the pendency of the appeal.

15. Let the applicants/appellants be released on

bail, during pendency of the appeal on their executing a

personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each

of the like amount, by each one of them, to the

satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.02.2025 Sanjay