BA-838-715-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.838 OF 2011 Rajiv Agarwal ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. J.S. Padam for the Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for Respondent No.1. Mr. D.N. Salvi for Respondent No.2. ALONG WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.715 OF 2011 Chandra Kanta ... Applicant V/s. EOU-VI/CBI, New Delhi & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Vastsal Verma, i/b. Mr. N.P. Shukla, for the Applicant. Mr. D.N. Salvi for Respondent No.1. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for Respondent No.2. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 12 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. These two Bail Applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as both the Applicants are the accused in the same case i.e. Sessions Case No.56 of 2011. 3. The crime was registered by the C.B.I. against five persons in respect of offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC read with Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC. It appears that, on some specific information, one Naresh Kumar Sachdeva (Accused No.1) and Chandra Kanta-(Accused No.2)-the Applicant in BA-838-715-11.sxw 2 Dixit Bail Application No.715 of 2011-were apprehended by the Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (hereinafter referred to as “the DRI”), on 22nd December, 2009 at Andheri Railway Police Station. It is alleged that they were possessing counterfeit currency notes of the purported value of Rs.18 lacs in the denomination of Rs.500/-. These counterfeit currency notes were seized and, in the course of investigation, the involvement of one Smt. Mandeep Kaur, who was at that time lodged at Tihar Jail, was revealed. The D.R.I. filed a complaint case, numbered as Sessions Case No.511 of 2010, which is pending before the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the D.R.I. forwarded its complaint to C.B.I. on the basis of which a case was registered by the C.B.I. In the course of investigation carried out by the C.B.I., the involvement of Rajiv Agarwal–the Applicant in Bail Application No. 838 of 2011–was revealed. 4. I have heard Mr. Padam, the learned Advocate for the Applicant in Bail Application No.838 of 2011, Mr. Verma, the learned Advocate for the Applicant in Bail Application No.715 of 2011, and Mr. Salvi, the learned Advocate for the C.B.I. 5. The main contention advanced by Mr. Padam is that the case against the Applicant is based only on the alleged confessional statements made by the co- accused. It is, however, clear that these confessional statements, having been recorded under the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, would be admissible in evidence, unless rendered irrelevant, in view of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Further, I am informed that the Applicant-Rajiv Agarwal was, subsequent to the registration of the present case, found to be involved in another case relating to counterfeit currency notes and alleged counterfeit currency notes, purporting to be worth of Rs.1 lac, were recovered from his residence. The case in respect of that offence is said to be pending in Delhi. BA-838-715-11.sxw 3 Dixit 6. As regards the Applicant–Chandra Kanta, it is not disputed before me that she has previously suffered a conviction in respect of an offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act. 7. It cannot be said that there exists no prima facie case against the Applicants. The material, that has been collected against them, cannot be evaluated meticulously at this stage. 8. Considering the nature of the offence and the apprehension expressed by the Investigating Agency that the Applicants, if released on bail, are likely to indulge in similar activities again, the proper course appears to me to direct the trial to be expeditiously held. 9. In the event of the trial not being over within the stipulated time, the prayer of the Applicants for bail can be reconsidered. 10. In the result, the Bail Applications are rejected. 11. However, the trial of the Sessions Case No.56 of 2011 is ordered to be expedited. The trial Court shall complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Liberty to the Applicants to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over by that time. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]