Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 443 (UTT)

RAM HARI SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-09-10

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate, for the applicant and Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No.275 of 2015, which has been registered under Sections 489B/489C & 34 of IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar. 3. The allegation against the present applicant is that he was caught with counterfeit, forged currency note having denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- which he intended to use as genuine. The First Information has been registered under Sections 489B/489C & 34 of IPC. Sections 489B and 489C are reproduced below:- “Section 489B of IPC:- Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.- Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 489C of IPC:- Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.- Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 4. The contention of the applicant before this Court would be that since he was not caught in the act of using or transferring the counterfeit note but was allegedly caught when he was only in possession of such counterfeit note, an offence, if any, is under Section 489C IPC and not under Section 489B IPC. 5. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that Section 489C is a bailable offence. From the perusal of the first information report, prima facie, though the applicant may not selling the counterfeit note as genuine when he was caught at Dharamsala in Haridwar. They were merely having in their possession counterfeit notes which they allegedly wanted to use as genuine. From the perusal of the first information report, prima facie, though the applicant may not selling the counterfeit note as genuine when he was caught at Dharamsala in Haridwar. They were merely having in their possession counterfeit notes which they allegedly wanted to use as genuine. From the available evidence, at this juncture, it cannot be said whether as of now that any offence under Section 489B is also made out. For bail, however, this benefit is given to the applicant since one of the co-accused Ms. Anju Mishra had already been granted bail by the court below. 6. An apprehension has been made by the learned counsel for the State that the applicant resides in Uttar Pradesh and there is a chance that he may abscond. It is hence provided that if the applicant misuses his bail in any manner or the applicant does not appear on any date of hearing where his presence is required before the trial court the State will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail. 7. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and two reliable sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned/court concerned. 8. It is made clear that any observations made by this Court are only for the purposes of grant of bail. It shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.