IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7308 of 2011() ----------------------------- CMP.5792/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEYYATINKARA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RAJ MUHAMMED, S/O.KHADER MOIDEEN, T.C.NO.41/2388, MANAKKADU THIKKA PALLI, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR & SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V. MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE --------------------------------------- B.A.No.7308 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No. 1281 of 2011 of Neyyattinkara Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 489 B, 489 C and 120 B of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: Accused No.3 is a financier. Wife of accused No.2 had pledged gold ornaments with accused No.3. On 28.7.2011, in order to redeem the gold ornaments, accused No.2 remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the finance concern of accused No.3. Accused No.3 used to pledge the ornaments which his customers had pledged with him, in other financial establishments. In respect of the ornaments belonging to the wife of accused No.2, accused No.3 had similarly pledged the ornaments with Muthoot Financiers. Therefore, accused No.3 paid amounts in Muthoot to take back the ornaments. An amount of Rs.50,000/- which was handed over by accused No.2 to accused No.3, as remitted by accused No.3 before Muthoot. Accused No.4 is the Manager B.A.No.7308 of 2011 2 of Muthoot and accused No.5 is the Cashier of Muthoot. They received the amount, put a slip on the bundle of notes showing the name of accused No.3, and released the ornaments to accused No.3. 4. Later , one Biju to whom a revenue recovery notice was issued by the Co-operative Bank, wanted to pledge the ornaments of his wife in Muthoot. Biju, pledged the ornaments and got amount from Muthoot. It is alleged that the same bundle of Rs.50,000/- was given by Muthoot to Biju. Biju took the amount to the Co-operative bank and paid the amount. The Secretary of the Bank found out that the currency notes of Rs.50,000/- were counterfeit currency notes. The currency notes were of the denomination of Rs.500/-. The Secretary reported the matter to the police. The police registered the Crime. 5. During investigation it was revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together and gave the fake notes to accused No.3. The fake currency was given by accused No.6. as a result of the conspiracy hatched by accused Nos. 6 and 7. It is alleged that accused No.7 got the fake currency worth seven lakhs from Tamilnadu. The petitioner was arrested on B.A.No.7308 of 2011 3 8.8.2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 6. The investigation is in progress. The source of counterfeit currency notes is to be found out. The allegations are very grave in nature. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the bail application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE rkc