Delhi High Court: The present bail application under Section 439, read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was filed on behalf of applicant, seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 489-B, 489-C, and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, after considering the seriousness of the offence, and the recoveries of fake currency from the first floor of petitioner’s house, dismissed the bail application and held that it is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. The Court opined that the supply and circulation of fake currency notes represented a serious threat to the economy, national security, and individual well-being, therefore, it was crucial for the Courts to deal with such cases with a stern hand.
Background
On 21-6-2013, a secret information was received at PS Special Cell, Delhi that one Tajeem who had been dealing in fake Indian currency notes, would be supplying fake currency notes near Splash Water Park, GT Karnal Road, Delhi at around 5:30 pm. Based on this information, a raiding team was formed to apprehend the accused persons at the spot. Thereafter, a raid was conducted, and co-accused Tajeem was apprehended, and during search, fake Indian currency notes worth Rs 2,50,000, all in the denomination of Rs 2000 notes were recovered from his possession.
During investigation, co-accused Tajeem had disclosed that he, along with petitioner, Irshad had been dealing in fake Indian currency notes for the last 3-4 months. It was also revealed that fake Indian currency notes were being supplied by accused persons throughout Delhi, U.P., Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner was apprehended from his residence in Kairana, U.P. at the instance of co-accused Tajeem, on 22-6-2023. Further, 150 fake currency notes of 2000 denomination, valued at Rs 3,00,000, were recovered at the instance of petitioner from a room situated on the first floor of his house.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the chargesheet revealed that petitioner had disclosed that he had learnt the process of manufacturing fake currency notes from YouTube and he himself used to print fake currency notes at his house and had all the equipment/tools at his house required for the same. Thereafter, the investigating agency had again conducted a raid at the residence of petitioner where equipment and tools used in printing and manufacturing of fake Indian currency notes, including paper sheets, green paper used for making wire/security thread, and a wooden frame used for cutting notes were recovered from his shop which was situated at the ground floor of his house.
The Court opined that the present case raised grave concerns regarding the involvement of accused persons in the distribution and circulation of counterfeit currency notes. The illicit activities surrounding the supply and circulation of counterfeit currency notes pose multifaceted risks to both the economy and individuals within society. There was no gainsaying that proliferation of counterfeit currency facilitates various forms of illicit activities, including money laundering, terrorism financing, and organized crime. Criminal syndicates often use counterfeit money to fund their operations, launder illicit proceeds, and finance illegal activities such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, and arms smuggling.
The Court observed that individuals who unknowingly come into possession of counterfeit currency also face significant risks and repercussions. Innocent consumers and businesses might unknowingly accept counterfeit money in transactions, only to later discover that they had been defrauded or cheated. This could lead to financial losses, legal liabilities, and damage to reputations, particularly for businesses that unwittingly accept counterfeit currency as payment for goods or services.
The Court opined that the supply and circulation of fake currency notes represented a serious threat to the economy, national security, and individual well-being. Therefore, it was crucial for the Courts to deal with such cases with a stern hand. Thus, the Court after considering the seriousness of the offence, and the recoveries from the first floor of petitioner’s house, dismissed the bail application and held that it was not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at this stage.
[Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2361, decided on 3-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: A.K. Suri, Advocate
For the Respondent: Manoj Pant, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
