JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No. 67 of 2013 dated 24.5.2013 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Amb, District Una (HP). 2. It is pleaded that prosecution has concluded its evidence on dated 21.8.2014 and case was posted for recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for dated 22.9.2014. It is pleaded that case was again adjourned for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for dated 29.10.2014 and again on dated 18.11.2014. It is pleaded that thereafter case is posted for recording statement of applicant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on dated 23.12.2014. It is also pleaded that only non-bailable offence is under Section 489-B IPC which is with respect to use the forged currency as genuine. It is pleaded that entire prosecution evidence is closed and one of co-accused Roop Lal already granted pre-arrest bail. It is pleaded that bail application of applicant was rejected by the Court. It is also pleaded that since four months statement of applicant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. not recorded prayer for acceptance of bail application is sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 67 of 2013 dated 24.5.2013 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 489B, 489C read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act in Police Station Amb District Una (H.P.) against the applicant. There is recital in police report that on dated 24.5.2013 complainant was present in his shop and at about 8.50 PM a vehicle having registration No. PB08V-4000 Indica came in very fast speed from Una side and struck with motor cycle. There is recital in police report that person travelling upon motor cycle sustained injuries. There is further recital in police report that person travelling in vehicle No. PB08V-4000 Indica left the vehicle from the place of incident. There is further recital in police report that during investigation place of incident was inspected and site plan was prepared and photographs obtained. There is further recital in police report that during investigation vehicle having registration No. PB08V-4000 Indica and motor cycle were took into possession vide seizure memo and both vehicles were mechanically examined. There is further recital in police report that during investigation place of incident was inspected and site plan was prepared and photographs obtained. There is further recital in police report that during investigation vehicle having registration No. PB08V-4000 Indica and motor cycle were took into possession vide seizure memo and both vehicles were mechanically examined. There is further recital in police report that in the dash board of vehicle No. PB08V-4000 counterfeit currency notes were found and during investigation it was found that vehicle having registration No. PB08V- 4000 was driven by Jaskaran and it was also observed that vehicle No. PB08V- 4000 was owned by Jaskaran applicant. There is further recital in police report that counterfeit currency notes were sent for examination to RFSL Dharamshala and as per chemical report all currency notes were counterfeit and were not genuine. It is pleaded that due to absence of water marks, due to absence of ultraviolet due to absence of intaglio printing due to difference in size due to printing colour combination currency notes were not found genuine and were counterfeit. There is further recital in police report that counterfeit currency notes were obtained by Jaskaran applicant from Amarjeet Singh @ Sonu son of Nishan Singh resident of village Rasoolpur P.O. Panjgrai Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur to the tune of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only). There is further recital in police report that even as per disclosure statement Jaskaran had disclosed that he has obtained the counterfeit currency notes from Amarjeet @ Sonu. There is further recital in police report that proceedings for declaring Amarjeet as proclaimed offender already initiated. There is also recital in police report that applicant deals in counterfeit currency notes business and commercial business of currency notes affected the economy of country. There is further recital in police report that challan against co-accused Jaskaran and Roop Lal already stood filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una and same is fixed for recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on dated 23.12.2014. There is further recital in police report that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then applicant would not appear in Court and trial of case will be adversely effected. Prayer for rejection of bail application is sought. 4. There is further recital in police report that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then applicant would not appear in Court and trial of case will be adversely effected. Prayer for rejection of bail application is sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that prosecution has concluded its evidence on dated 21.8.2014 and thereafter criminal case was listed for recording statement of applicant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. several times but still statement of applicant was not recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by learned trial Court and on this ground bail application filed by applicant be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In present case since criminal case is in last stage and prosecution evidence already stood closed therefore direction would be issued to learned trial Court to dispose of the case expeditiously within one month in accordance with law. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant at this state when prosecution evidence already stood closed. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that even prosecution did not support the prosecution story and offence under Section 489-B and 489-C IPC is not proved and on this ground bail application filed by applicant be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that even prosecution did not support the prosecution story and offence under Section 489-B and 489-C IPC is not proved and on this ground bail application filed by applicant be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that whether offence under Section 489-B and 489-C IPC is proved or not will be decided by learned trial Court when criminal case will be disposed of finally by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is held that in view of the fact that criminal case is in last stage of disposal it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on bail at this stage. It is further held that if applicant is released on bail then interest of State and general public will be adversely effected because present case is a case of counterfeit currency notes and the offence of counterfeit currency notes is the offence against the economy of Nation. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant that applicant is facing the trial of counterfeit currency notes which is an offence against the Nation and on this ground bail application filed by applicant be rejected is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Offence under Section 489-B is relating to forged currency which is offence against the society and Nation and no one can be allowed to commit such type of offence in order to get personal commercial gain at the cost of Nation and Society. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 Final Order 9. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected in the ends of justice. However learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the case finally within one month after the receipt of certified copy of this order. Learned Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certified copy of this order to learned trial Court for compliance. Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. However learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the case finally within one month after the receipt of certified copy of this order. Learned Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certified copy of this order to learned trial Court for compliance. Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of.