IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33753 of 2010 MD.MUMTAZ ANSARI son of Md. Khalil, Resident of village-Sothgaon, P.S.-Harlakhi, District-Madhubani. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 23.2.2011. Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Poonam Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 122 of 2010 for the offence under sections 489 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E), 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from possession of the petitioner, Rs.90,000/- of currency notes, alleged to be fake, were recovered and, as such, he was taken into custody. It was further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case section 489 (C) of the Indian Penal Code can only be attracted. While referring to section 489(C) of the Code, it was submitted that since it was a case of possession of fake currency notes only penal section which is section 489(C) of the Code may apply. It was also submitted that other two accused persons of the present case namely, Vinay Kumar Pandey and Sushil Kumar Sah have already been granted bail by this court vide Cr. Misc. No.32618 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. No.35857 of 2010 respectively. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly 2 opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that the case of accused Sushil Kumar Sah and Vinay Kumar Pandey is not similar to the petitioner. From the possession of the petitioner, Rs.90,000/- fake currency notes were recovered. The petitioner categorically disclosed before the officials of the SSB, who had apprehended the petitioner, that on earlier occasion also he had brought fake currency note and delivered the same to other accused persons. Accordingly, she has prayed to reject the present bail petition. In the present case, the petitioner was arrested by the officials of the SSB and from his possession huge quantity of fake Indian Currency notes to the tune of Rs.90,000/- was recovered. The petitioner categorically disclosed that he was regularly bringing fake currency note and using the same. On his disclosure, accused Vinay Kumar Pandey and Sushil Kumar Sah were subsequently arrested and from possession of Vinay Kumar Pandey two currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination each were recovered. Since Vinay Kumar Pandey and Sushil Kumar Sah were made accused due to confession of this petitioner, the petitioner cannot take a plea that his case can be equated with other two accused persons, who have been granted bail. It is not a case of simple possession of fake currency note but disclosure of the petitioner is itself indicative of the fact regarding application of other provisions of the Penal Code. I do not find any merit in the case. The petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)