The Court dismissed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail application challenging an order by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge in an NIA case involving fake currency notes, citing the appellant's history and risk of fleeing.
The criminal appeal against the bail rejection order is dismissed. Bail is refused to the appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2021
JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)
Heard Sri K. Nithin Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent.
CPK, J & BKM, J
2
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
Visakhapatnam Railway Station. The said seizure came to be made when A.1 was travelling by Train No.12510 Guwahati-Bengaluru Super Fast Express in Berth No.11, S-5 compartment. He confessed about smuggling of fake Indian currency notes into India from Bangladesh and that he is carrying them to Bengaluru. A.1 was arrested on 22.09.2015 and remanded to judicial custody. The seized fake Indian currency notes were sent for analysis and found it to be high quality fake/counterfeit Indian Currency Notes. Pursuant thereto, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide proceedings No.11034/110/2015-IS-IV, dated 16.12.2015, directed the NIA to take up the investigation in this case, which led to re-registration of the case for the offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C IPC and Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. After investigating the matter, a charge sheet came to be filed against A.1 initially on 29.07.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 489B and 489C of IPC and a supplementary charge sheet came to be filed against others for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 18, 18B and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. At the time of filing of first charge sheet, permission was obtained
CPK, J & BKM, J
3
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
from the court to continue further investigation against the petitioner/ A.2 and A.4.
ii) Basing on the information available, A.2, who is the petitioner/appellant, was arrested on 10.04.2018 in the presence of independent witnesses. During the custodial interrogation, he disclosed his involvement and arrest in 2012 and his release in June, 2015. Thereafter, he returned to his native village Palagachi in Malda, West Bengal, and met one Faruk, who asked him whether he is having any links with the persons involved in procurement/circulation of fake currency notes. It is said that while in custody, A.2 developed contact with A.3 and A.6 and after release he maintained contacts with them. According to him, he provided the mobile number of A.3 to Faruk and also communicated with A.3, by which Faruk will supply fake Indian currency notes to him. The said Faruk also asked the petitioner to open a bank account so that A.2 can receive deposits in lieu of supply of fake Indian currency notes. Accordingly, A.2 opened an account in Axis Bank in July, 2015 in the name of his wife Murtara Bibi with an amount of Rs.7,000/- given by Faruk, and thereafter, a large sums of money came to
CPK, J & BKM, J
4
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
be transferred from various branches of Axis Bank in the account of the wife of A.2.
iv) Ameer Akram Shekh, brother of A.2, was examined as the CAF of mobile number 9775162724 was in his name. He disclosed about the purchase of SIM using his identity document i.e. Aadhar Card No.516113190579 and his photograph. But, however, he disowned the signature affixed on the CAF. He denied the usage of said mobile number and also states that he had no knowledge about the illegal activities of his brother.
CPK, J & BKM, J
5
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
CPK, J & BKM, J
6
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
such, the prosecution failed to prove the culpability of the petitioner/A.2 in the crime.
“ 16. Punishment for terrorist act .—(1) Whoever commits a terrorist act shall,— (a) if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
CPK, J & BKM, J
7
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc .—Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or 3 [incites, directly or knowingly facilitates] the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
18B. Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act .—Whoever recruits or causes to be recruited any person or persons for commission of a terrorist act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.]
20. Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation .—Any person who is a member of a terrorist gang or a terrorist organisation, which is involved in terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
CPK, J & BKM, J
8
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
market. The said paper is manufactured and sold under restricted conditions to the purchaser for printing bank notes and other security products as per the required specifications. Therefore, the authorities, opined that a foreign hand in the conspiracy is involved to damage the monetary stability of the country. Keeping this aspect in mind, we shall now deal with the matter.
CPK, J & BKM, J
9
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
involving himself in offences of circulation of FICN again and again, which indicates the intention of the petitioner to commit such offences. As stated earlier, the petitioner, after his release in the year 2015, is involved in two more cases, which are referred to above and in the present crime as well. He is a resident of Bhimagram, Palgachhi, Sulthanganj, West Bengal and the apprehension of the learned Assistant Solicitor General that there is every likelihood of he crossing the border, if released, cannot be ruled out.
CPK, J & BKM, J
10
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
ignorance about the opening of an account and operating the said bank account by her husband, and secondly, Ameer Akram Shekh, brother of the petitioner/A.2 was examined, as the CAF of mobile number 9775162724 was in his name. According to him, the petitioner purchased the said SIM using his identity document i.e. Aadhar Card No.516113190579 and his photograph. He disowned the signature affixed on the CAF. He further stated that he never used the said mobile number and he had no knowledge about any illegal activities of his brother. The two circumstances makes it clear that the petitioner is not only involved in opening of bank account but also using SIM cards of others for his illegal activities.
CPK, J & BKM, J
11
CRLA.No.46 of 2021
war against the country, we hold that it is a not a fit case to
grant bail to the petitioner/A.2.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
________________________
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J
Date: 03-08-2021
Ksn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail considering his history of habitual offences and the nature of fake currency smuggling.
Whether the apprehension of the appellant escaping to Bangladesh justifies rejection of bail in an NIA case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
A.2
State of Andhra Pradesh
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
B. KRISHNA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
