w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Khaleel Ahmed & Others v/s State, Represented by Public Prosecutor State of Karnataka High Court

Company & Directors' Information:- M S AHMED & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1932PTC007608

    Criminal Petition Nos. 7622, 7369 of 2018

    Decided On, 21 December 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioners: C.M. Jagadeesh, B. Roopesha, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.T. Naik, HCGP.

Judgment Text

1. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 110/2018 of Vidyaranyapuram Police Station, Mysuru City. They are charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under sections 489B and 489C of IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 25.8.2018 at 11.15 a.m., respondent/Police received the information that some of the public have apprehended the first accused Veena near Library of Vidyaranyapura, Mysore and she was possessing counterfeit currency notes. Respondent-Police apprehended her. On her personal search, she was found possessing counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 100/- in all amounting to Rs. 9,000/-. Her interrogation revealed that herself and the second accused were indulging in processing and printing the currency notes using some computer devices in their office named Jwalamukhi Enterprises situated at Tilaknagar, Mysore. On the basis of such voluntary statement, Police seized counterfeit currency notes, paper pieces used in printing the currency notes, computer, printer, keyboards, etc. from shop No. 3405.

3. The first accused is arrested on 25.8.2018 and since then, she is in judicial custody. The second accused is apprehending his arrest in the said case. Therefore, they have filed these petitions for bail and anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is nobody to speak about the circulation of the counterfeit currency notes and the electronic devices allegedly seized are not subjected to data analysis. He further submits that all incriminating material is seized, therefore, petitioners may be granted bail.

5. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is sufficient material against the petitioners in proof of allegation. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the second accused is required to ascertain if he is involved in any other cases of similar nature.

6. The charge sheet records made available for the perusal of this Court do not indicate that the electronic devices seized in the case were subjected to data analysis. So far as the first accused, all the incriminating material is already seized.

7. In the charge sheet, no witness is cited as the person to whom the alleged currency notes found in possession of the first accused were attempted to be circulated. The said search and seizure was not at the place where first accused was allegedly found or apprehended by the public.

8. None of those public, who were allegedly apprehended the first accused, are cited as charge sheet witnesses. Under these circumstances, the first accused can be granted bail with suitable conditions.

9. So far as the second accused, CW-4 states that accused Nos.1 and 2 were running "Jwalamukhi Enterprises" from where allegedly some currency notes were seized and the electronic devices were seized. His custodial interrogation is not conducted. Under these circumstances, at this stage, it is not just to extend anticipatory bail to him.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011 CRL.L.J. 3905) submits that having regard to the material on record, second accused is entitled for anticipatory bail. In para- 124 of the said judgment, it is held as follows:

"124. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record."

11. As already pointed out, from the place where the second accused was allegedly conducting the business, there is recovery of counterfeit currency notes and the electronic devices. Having regard to such material, the aforesaid judgment does not in any way advance his case. Therefore, Criminal Petition No. 7622/2018 is hereby dismissed.

Criminal Petition No. 7369/2018 is allowed. Petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 7369/2018 is granted bail in Crime No. 110/2018 of Vidyaranyapuram Police Station, Mysuru City, subject to the following conditions:

1) She shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

0,000/- and furnish two sureties in the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for her appearance; 2) She shall appear before the Court as and when required for the purpose of trial; 3) She shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. The observation made in this order is confined only to this case and shall not come in the way of the Sessions Court in considering the bail application, if any, filed by the second accused.