Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1067 of 2008 24.10.2008 Present: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for the respondent. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No. 26 of 2008 dated 9.3.2008 registered at Police Station, Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and one Raj Kumar presented one currency note in the denomination of Rs. 1000/- before a shopkeeper at Barotiwala. The shopkeeper informed the police. In search operation, five more bank notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination were recovered from the petitioner. These notes were got examined from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and thereafter from the Security Printing Press, Nasik. The reports established that these currency notes were counterfeit. Mr. S.D. Gill has strenuously argued that the investigation in the case is complete and his client would abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. The petitioner will not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The learned Additional Advocate General has resisted the bail application. The notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination recovered from the petitioner have been found to be counterfeit after their examination firstly at Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and lateron from the Security :2: Printing Press, Nasik. Possession and circulation of counterfeit currency is a serious economic offence. It affects the national economy. Mr. S.D. Gill has argued that these currency notes were handed over to his client by the contractor with whom his client was working. Mr. Gill could not substantiate in which capacity the petitioner was working with the contractor and when these notes were handed over to him by the contractor. The name of the contractor has also not been mentioned even in the application. The petitioner had earlier filed an application in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Solan. The same was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by a speaking order. The plea that the currency notes were paid by the contractor as salary to the petitioner have neither been pleaded in the present application nor before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Solan. It is not a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail. In view of the observations made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as an expression/opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’ on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), J. October 24, 2008. (cr)