1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2003/2009 (Madhu @ Madhusudan Narayanprasad Raipure vs. State of Maharashtara ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr A.S. Sonak, Adv.for applicant Mr D.P. Thakare, APP for Respondent-State C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 14 th August, 2009. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in respect of Crime No. 60/2008, reported at Police Station Bela, District Nagpur for offence punishable under sections 420, 489-A,B & C of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that mere possession of counterfeit currency notes cannot attract Section 489-B and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, on the ground that there was no prima facie material against him to prove his involvement in recovery of counterfeit currency notes. Learned Advocate made a reference to the ruling in the case of Rameshwar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 All M.R. (Cri) 1507 ( V. M. Kanade,J.). In the said ruling, the submission was considered that there was no material on record to establish the fact that the applicant was aware of the counterfeit currency notes found in possession of the accused and 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. Thus, on the basis of material indicating mere possession of counterfeit currency notes, it was held that Section 489-B was not attracted; but section 498-C I.P.C., which was a bailable offence. Thus, in the Rameshwar’s case, there was no material to indicate applicability of provision under section 489-B of the I.P.C. as applicant had not used the notes which were found with him. Hence bail was granted. 2 3. In the present case, however, the learned APP pointed out from the material collected during the investigation that there is prima facie material to believe that the applicant was a commission agent and had received sum of Rs.10,000/- as his commission. The statements, under Panchnama, have been recorded as memorandum under sec.24 of the Act. The learned Advocate for the applicant contended that such confessional statement is not admissible in law. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the other co-accused, namely, Kishor Neware, Radheshyam Badre and Surendra Bhagare were released on bail under section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Although accusations appear to be serious in this case, mere statement by the co-accused without any consequent discovery would not be legally admissible. As such, except for statement of the co- accused there appears no material collected during the investigation, such as, recovery of mobile phones from the applicant etc. to prima facie establish communications along with other co-accused. Under these circumstances, merely because the applicant is resident of Chhindwara (M.P.), the benefit of bail cannot be denied to him but conditions will have to imposed against him so as to ensure his presence at the trial. Hence the order: The applicant was granted interim bail vide order dated 2nd July 2009., The same is confirmed subject to the conditions that the applicant shall attend on each and every date of hearing in the trial; shall not communicate with any witness or witnesses concerned with the case and shall not commit any crime while on bail. He shall inform his address and change in the address with phone number, if any, to the Investigating Officer. Humdast granted. JUDGE. sahare