1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2396 of 2009 Surendra v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.M. Daga, Adv for applicant Mr A. Parihar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 13th August 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 222/08 registered with Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur under Sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is in jail since last one year. 2. It is alleged that applicant was supplying counterfeit currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- to co-accused Kishor Neware who was illegally trafficking the same. In all 90 fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- were seized from the person of applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that though counterfeit notes have been found on the person of the applicant, there is no material on record to establish the fact that 2 the applicant was aware of these notes were counterfeit notes. Secondly, there was no material to show that the applicant had used these notes as genuine notes though he was aware that they are fake currency notes. It is submitted that mere possession, therefore, of counterfeit currency notes is contrary to the provisions of Section 489-B. It is contended that so far as Section 489-C is concerned, it is a bailable offence. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Rameshwar v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 1507. In the said case, there was no material on record to indicate that the applicant had used the counterfeit notes which were found with him and, therefore, provisions of Section 489-B IPC were not attracted and the applicant was held to be entitled for grant of bail. 4. Learned APP opposed the application and contended that if released on bail, applicant may indulge into such illegal trafficking and that facts involved in Rameshwar’s case (supra) are different and the ratio laid down therein is not applicable in the present case. 5. In the present case, it is alleged that applicant used to buy fake currency notes (10,000 fake notes for Rs. 6000/-) from the operator hailing from Nepal and traffic the same in India through agents like co-accused Kishor. On verification of calls records in relation to the cellular phones of accused persons including applicant, it was established that they had links and they were in contact with each other. In the present case, 3 therefore, it cannot be prima facie said that applicant was merely possessing counterfeit or fake currency notes. Therefore, judgment in the case of Rameshwar v. State of Maharashtra (supra) is of no avail to the applicant. Applicant is resident of State of Madhya Pradesh and accusation against him is serious. If released on bail, there are chances of his getting absconded looking to the probable conviction and long sentence. Learned APP at this stage submits that trial in the case is about to commence. 6. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the application. It is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. Judge. Hsj