IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4643 of 2009 SUDHIR KUMAR KUSHWAHA son of Sheo Shankar Prasad, resident of village Ghorasahan, P.S. Harpur(Adapur), Distrit East Champaran … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Bishwanath Pd.Sinha, Sr.Adv. For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 3. 10.2.2009 Heard Shri Bishwnath Prasad Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The renewal prayer is on the ground that the earlier order speaking of the case falling either under Section 489-A or 489-C of the I.P.C. may not be correct inasmuch as the facts may constitute an offence under Section 489-C and not exclusively under Section 489-B or 489-A. The allegation is that the petitioner was found in possession of fake currency notes of Rs. 69,000/- while he was staying in a hotel. There is no dispute that those notes were not genuine or in other terms the notes were fake. If one could peruse the language of Section 489-B of the I.P.C. one could find 2 that the act trafficking or any of the acts spoken of in that particular provision with the knowledge or belief that the counterfeit notes which were brought in traffic were really counterfeits could be constituting an offence under Section 489-B. As against that, the very possession of such counterfeit with such belief as indicated in Section 489-B with further intention to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine by some other persons could make out the case under Section 489-C. It is not required to be reiterated that for deciding the prayer for bail, the facts alleged in the F.I.R. has to be treated as true on their face value. The defence of explaining away the allegation as in the present case or any other fact which could bring it out of the purview of the application of law, could also be considered at the time of hearing the prayer for bail, but the probability of the above consideration or standard of probability in a case of bail and of recording a finding as regards the guilt or innocence of an accused might not be the 3 same; it may be quite different from the present stage to that of the stage of delivering a judgment on the innocence or guilt of an accused. On the facts as indicated above, I still hold the view that it could be a case of trafficking in fake currency notes and the huge quantity of the notes indicates that those were not genuine and imparts the necessary knowledge and belief to the petitioner that they were really counterfeit or fake notes and on that account, I do not see any reason to review the order contained in annexure-1, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30845 of 2008. The petition is dismissed. However, the case of the present nature presents a particular class and that has also to be dealt with quite some expedition as judging the fact and rendering a judgment may have its own special effect on the ultimate behaviour of an offender like the present petitioner. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)