sat 1 cri.bail appln 1034-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1034 OF 2011 Mr.Miraj Haider Ali Shaikh ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Chaintanya A. Mulgaonkar i/b. Mr.Mahesh R. Patil and Ms.Rishi Bhuta for the Applicant. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. NOVEMBER 25, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard learned Advocate Mr.Chaintanya Mulgaonkar for the applicant and Mr.Hingorani, learned Additional PP for the State. 2 Perused the chargesheet and particularly, the panchnama under which the counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant was apprehended near Borivali Railway Station on the basis of certain information received by the police that he would be carrying counterfeit currency notes which has sat 2 cri.bail appln 1034-2011 resulted into seizure of counterfeit currency notes worth Rs.2,81,000/-. The counterfeit currency notes were sent to Currency Note Press, Nashik Road. Report is received by the police. It is reported by the Currency Note Press, Nashik that all the suspected notes were examined in detail by comparing with genuine specimen note with the help of modern scientific instruments. Notes were not found genuine on examination. 3 The notes which were used by the applicant for buying certain articles have been seized from the vendors. As such, the applicant is charesheeted for the offences punishable u/ss. 489B and 489C of IPC. 4 The applicant is not able to give any explanation. It is not his case that he had received these notes from somebody else. It is, therefore, for him to explain the position. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. At this stage, this submission cannot be accepted. In view of the detailed panchnama prepared by the police, the application deserves to be rejected. sat 3 cri.bail appln 1034-2011 5 The application is rejected. 6 The trial Judge shall try to decide the case as early as possible. 7 The learned Counsel for the applicant is at liberty to move the trial court for expeditious hearing. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)