IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36356 of 2008 MD.ASFAQUE ALAM, MD. MOKHTAR ALAM AND MD. ISHTIYAQUE ALAM @ ISHTEHAQUE ALAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 27.11.2008 Heard Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The three petitioners are in custody in a case registered under Sections 489A and 489B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 etc of the Arms Act. It is not disputed that the house was joint and from one of the rooms of the house, fake currency notes of the value of Rs.1,20,000/- was recovered, the denomination of notes being of Rs.500/-each. In addition to the above, the police recovered country made pistols and six cartridges. The police appears not in any doubt that the head of the family was Md. Abu Jafar, the father of Md. Mustaque, who is in custody. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners had framed his arguments on the very statement which appears in the FIR that the said Md. Abu Jafar stated to the police that his son Md. Mustaque went way word and indulged in a nefarious activities like the - 2 - present one and none in the family had anything to do with the incident. The police records that when it arrived at the seen of occurrence at the time recovery was made, all the accused persons were sitting there along with Md. Kamil Hassan who has been granted bail by me on the premise that he happened to be a guest arriving in the house in the night previous to the day of occurrence on account of being the son-in-law of Md. Abu Jafar. The contention is that the offence appears committed by Md. Mustaque and the above named three petitioners being the junior members of the family had nothing to do with the offence as appears indicated by the statement of Md. Abu Jafar as well. The further contention is that as regards the recoveries of the arms it was from a joint house and particularly from a room which could be in exclusive possession of a co-accused Md.Mustaque. As such the liability could not be fastened against any of the three petitioners. It was further contended that the Section of the offences under which the FIR has been registered may not be applicable to case under its facts. The seizure memo, a copy of which is - 3 - also annexed as the part of the FIR indicates that the recovery was made from the house which was in joint possession of the accused persons. Similar is the statement of witnesses that the recovery was from the joint house of the accused persons. It is true that Md. Abu Jafar has made statement which is recorded in the FIR itself as part thereof that Md. Mustaque the accused who is in custody was the chief player in the entire episode but there is nothing on record to indicate that it could be the act of the said Md. Mustaque. The recovery appears is of huge number of fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/-each. The investigation has been concluded and the police has found the complicity of all the accused persons on investigation. As regards the contention that the offences under which the FIR has been registered may not be applicable, this could be debated and decided only after the evidence is recorded by the learned Trial Judge. Regard being had to the seriousness and ultimate implication of the occurrence on our economy and national safety, I am not inclined - 4 - to release the above named three petitioners on bail. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )