1 BA 476-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.476 OF 2011 Samed Rabbul Shaikh .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.Javed Khan, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 21ST OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for bail by the person, who has been arrested and chargesheeted in connection with C.R.No.26 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 489-A, B, C & 120-B of the Indian Penal registered with A.T.S.Police Station for possession and use of counterfeit notes. Notes worth Rs.3,00,000/- were seized from the possession of the applicant on 29th November, 2 BA 476-2011 2010. The material collected does not show that the applicant had used those counterfeit notes. They were found only in his possession though the police have chosen to prosecute the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 489-A, B, C. As far as Section 489-A is concerned, this is about counterfeiting. The material does not show that any evidence about applicant's being involved in counterfeiting has been collected. As far as using the counterfeit notes is concerned, since police swooped upon even the applicant even before he used the notes, right now, there does not appear to be any evidence about use of the counterfeit. Though police can investigate further and find evidence. As far as Section 489-C is concerned, it is bailable. The learned APP submits that a Division Bench of this Court in Kiran Kumar K. Khanda Vs. State of Maharashtra on Criminal Application No.5343 of 2010 decided on 4th March, 2011 has observed in para 11 of the Judgment as 3 BA 476-2011 under :- 11. The Single Bench in the referal order has rightly noted down that accused No.1 is the resident of Kandivali, accused No.2 is the resident of Khar (East) and accused No.3 is the resident of Malad. The counterfeit notes were not found at the place of their residence or at the place of their work. We agree with the observations made in the referal order. Prima facie, there may not be a case punishable under Section 489-A of I.P.C. in the instant case, but at the same time the offence of trafficing in forged or counterfeit currency notes is an offence which poses a challenge to the economy of the country. These offences , therefore, cannot be viewed lightly. The Courts must be sensitive in dealing with such offences and not to delete them without providing an opportunity to the prosecution to prove by leading evidence at the trial. The rapid changing technology in the process of counterfeiting, sale or trafficking transactions, which virtually amount to waging a financial war against the country cannot be lost sight of while interpreting such penal provisions. In a given case the prosecution may be able to prove that in the 4 BA 476-2011 process of trafficking of counterfeit notes, the handlers of the accused operate from somewhere else and the accused are mere transporters of these notes. In such a situation, it can not be said that the accused were merely in possession of the counterfeit currency notes. The modus operandi of such crimes has different faces and some of them are veiled. It would be, therefore, imperative that the prosecution is allowed to lead evidence during the trial to lift such veil rather than truncketing it by the interpretatative mechanism before the trialcommences. It will be only during the trial that the prosecution would be able to prove whether the possession of the notes was fortrafficking. She, therefore, submits that since it is serious offence, bail may be rejected. If an offence is bailable, there would be no question of refusal of bail. The prosecution has to come up with its case while filing chargesheet. The prosecution can at the best claim that all that is stated in the chargesheet may be taken to be true & nothing 5 BA 476-2011 more. The learned APP submits that this Court had by order dated 4th July, 2011 expedited hearing of the case and therefore, the case is going to be shortly heard and it is fixed on 3rd November, 2011 and therefore, submits that application may be rejected. In that case, if the trial commences by 3rd November, 2011, there would be no question of applicant's being bailed out, if the trial concludes by end of that month. In view of this, if the trial is not concluded by 30th November, 2011, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall attend A.T.S.Police Station on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.. Should the trial be protracted on account of the present applicant, the period for disposal of the case would be extended accordingly. 6 BA 476-2011 3. Criminal Application stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)