1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 05 of 2011 Mohnish Kanfade ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., City Kotwali, Akola Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.M.Ghare, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondent/State CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 9th March , 2011 . Heard Mr. A.M.Ghare, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. S.S.Doifode, learned APP for the respondent/State. By the present application under Section 439 of Code or Criminal Procedure, the applicant is seeking his release on bail in connection with Crime No. 206/2009, registered with Police Station, City Kotwali, Akola, under Sections 489(A)(B)(C)(D), 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Mr. A.M.Ghare, learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant Mohnish, who is in the business of fashion designing and running a fashion designing store at Amravati, is falsely implicated in the said crime only on the allegations. He is having no criminal background at his credit. The learned Advocate has further submitted that the material available with the prosecution against the applicant, which is only in the form of statement of co- accused, is too short to connect him with the alleged offence. The applicant was arrested by the investigating agency on 08/8/2010 and since then i.e. for more than 7 months, he is behind the bars. The 2 learned Advocate further submitted that a Scanner purchased by one accused namely Ganesh Bherane from Indore city, State of Madhya Pradesh, was kept in possession of the applicant at the instance of one friend and that is the only material against the applicant. The learned Advocate further submitted that the applicant is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, in case the application is allowed. Per contra, Mr. S.S.Doifode, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the application. The grounds for opposition as raised by the learned APP are namely - (1) This is a second attempt of the applicant seeking his release on bail in this crime. The learned APP, by inviting my attention to the order passed by this Court dated 19/10/2010 submitted that the applicant had filed an application vide Criminal Application No. 1566 of 2010 seeking similar relief i.e. grant of release on bail and on considering the material, this Court, at the request of the applicant, permitted him to withdraw the application with liberty to the applicant to file fresh application in future in accordance with law as and when the occasion arises. The learned APP further submitted that when the earlier application was filed, the material collected by the investigating agency was before this Court. The applicant was permitted to file fresh application as and when the occasion arises necessarily means that in case of change of circumstance the applicant was entitled for moving the application for his release on bail. (2) The second ground is that the applicant had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Akola by presenting an application (Exh.4) under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Session Trial No. 131/2010 for his release on bail. Learned APP by inviting my attention to the said application (Exh.4) submitted that in that application, which was subsequently filed after withdrawal of Criminal Application NO. 3 1566/2010, the applicant has not stated any change of circumstance, on the contrary, in that application the applicant has not even referred to the order dated 19/10/2010 passed by this Court, wherein the applicant was permitted to withdraw and as such the applicant, without there being any change in the circumstance, is moving the applications and this application needs to be rejected on this sole ground. The learned APP has further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency on 20/11/2009 and the supplementary charge-sheet has been filed on 23/8/2010, wherein the material against the applicant is revealed i.e. a scanner, which was used for preparing counterfeit currency notes. Learned APP also submitted that the offence is very serious i.e. preparation of counterfeit currency notes and circulation in the society. The learned APP by inviting my attention to the reply filed by the State, submitted that the offence is not only of grave nature, but a serious one, which is a danger to the economy of the country. He further submitted that the investigating agency has forwarded Hard Disk of the computer/ Laptop available with the accused, to Mumbai for expert's report and the report is awaited. He further submitted that the investigating agency is hopeful of getting further clues after receipt of the expert's report and the investigating agency may take necessary steps as required under the law in view of that report. He further submitted that in view of these facts, the material was brought before this Court when the earlier application was moved by the applicant which was withdrawn on 19/10/2010 and immediately within a period of 3 weeks, without showing any change of circumstance, the applicant filed an application (Exh.4) before the Sessions Court, Akola on 09/11/2010. The said application (Exh.4) was rejected by the 4 learned Sessions Judge, Akola by order dated 12/11/2010 and now the present application is filed before this Court on 06/01/2011. Learned APP further submitted that even at this stage, no change of circumstance is shown by the applicant. The material is also same and when on the same material case of the applicant is considered on two occasions, now there is no reason to show any indulgence at the hands of this Court. Learned APP has placed the material for perusal of this Court. On consideration of the submissions of learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State, I am of the opinion that as there is no change in the circumstance and the investigating agency is yet to get the expert's report, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale