IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 848 of 2010 CRIME NO.22/CR/III/09 OF CBCID, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 -------------------------------------- R.K.USMAN, S/O.ABDU, RARAM KANDATH HOUSE, THRIKKANAPURAM, (VIA) THAVANNOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE C.I. OF POLICE, C.B.C.I.D., NOORIYAD, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON 08/03/2010, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 848 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by R.K.Usman, accused No.5 in Crime No. 22/CR/III/ 09 of C.B.C.I.D., Malappuram. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 489-A, 489-C and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 16.8.2008, the first accused Muhammad Alshab came to India from Ras Al Khaimah and landed at Karipur International Airport. On examination of his baggage, several bundles of Indian currency notes were found kept therein. Muhammed Alshab stated to the officials of the DRI, Calicut that the currencies were given to him by Majeed (accused No.9) and Raffi (accused No.8). It was also stated by the first accused that Moosakutty alias Babu (Accused No.7) and Sajin alias Chinnan ( accused No.2) would approach him and ask for the baggage. When the first accused came out, three B.A. NO. 848 OF 2010 :: 2 :: persons approached him. They were Abdul Malik (accused No. 3), Sajin alias Chinnan and Noushad (accused No.4). The DRI officials who were waiting outside the Airport stopped them. The passenger was escorted to the arrival hall of the Airport. On detailed examination, counterfeit Indian currency for a sum of Rs.72,50,000/- was found kept in the baggage. On the basis of the statements of Muhammed Alshab and the three other persons, searches were conducted. The petitioner was apprehended by the DRI officials. His statement was recorded and he was arrested. 4. The DRI officials felt that it was necessary to proceed against the accused persons under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Intelligence, Calicut requested the Station House Officer, Kondotty Police station to register a case for the offences. Crime No.103 of 2009 of Kondotty Police Station was accordingly registered. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in judicial custody for 55 days on his arrest by the DRI officials. When the petitioner apprehended arrest, he B.A. NO. 848 OF 2010 :: 3 :: moved B.A. No.4631 of 2009 before the High Court for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by the order dated 20th August 2009. Thereafter, he filed W.P. (C) No.27454 of 2009 before the High Court contending that he could not be arrested again for the same offence. The Writ Petition was dismissed as per the judgment dated 22nd October 2009. It is stated that the petitioner surrendered before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram on 13-1-2010. He was remanded to judicial custody. The applications for bail submitted by the petitioner were dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner moved the Sessions Court for bail. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for bail, by the order dated 1st February 2010. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence and that continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. He submitted that there are sufficient materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. It is submitted that accused No.7 Moosakutty alias Babu is a close associate of accused No.8 B.A. NO. 848 OF 2010 :: 4 :: Muhammad Rafi. Muhammad Rafi and Majeed (accused No.9) entrusted the counterfeit currency to accused No.1. It is submitted that accused No.7 used to stay with the petitioner in a lodge at Kondotty. The petitioner has close links with accused No.7. It is also submitted that accused No.6 Abdul Karim is an employee in the Karipur Airport. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.9 is not arrested so far. Accused Nos.1,2,3,6,7 and 8 are undergoing preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the investigation of the case is being conducted by the CBCID, Malappuram. The investigation is in progress. The petitioner was absconding and therefore he could not be arrested earlier. If the petitioner is released on bail, he would make himself scarce. The chances of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and attempting to intimidate and influence the witnesses cannot be ruled out. 8. The offence alleged against the accused is grave in nature. The case involves counterfeit currency to the tune of Rs.72.5 lakhs. The investigation reveals that the counterfeit currency notes were printed in another country. The network of the accused in the matter of import of counterfeit currency is well organised. The gravity of the B.A. NO. 848 OF 2010 :: 5 :: situation can be imagined, as an employee in the Karipur Airport is also allegedly involved in the import of counterfeit currency. Import of counterfeit currency into India is intended to destabilise the nation, apart from making easy money. Such offences cannot be dealt with lightly. The financial stability of the nation is of paramount importance. Any dent in the same would affect millions of people. When compared to the rights of millions of citizens, the personal liberty of an offender is negligible. Since the investigation is in progress, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be released on bail. The apprehension voiced by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/