Muzaffar Sheikh v. The Union Of India Through The Directorate Revenue Intelligence Regional Office-1st Floor Custom Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26600 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2015 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Muzaffar Sheikh, son of Alauddin Sheikh, resident of C/o Badruddin Sheikh, 16 Mile, P.S. - 16 mile, P.O.- Baishanabanagar, District Malda (West Bengal), Permanent resident of Village- Kendua, P.O. Banigram, P.S. Farakiya, District Mursidabad (West Bengal) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India through the Directorate Revenue Intelligence Regional office-1st Floor Custom Office Building, Imali Chowki, Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devendra Kumar, S.C., DRI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 12-07-2016 Heard parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 135 (1) (a) & (b) of the Custom Act. Allegedly, six lacs ninety thousand of fake Indian currency has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the signature of the accused made at two places vary from each other and in fact at one place Muzaffar Sheikh appears to have put his left thumb impression. Thus, it is contended that this is a case of false implication.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has submitted that petitioner has accepted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26600 of 2016 (2) dt.12-07-2016 2 / 2 the guilt and statement has been recorded under Section 108 of the Excise Act.

However, in view of serious nature of allegation made against the petitioner and recovery of huge amount of fake Indian currency, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

However, the court concerned is directed to expedite the matter.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Sanjay-II/- U T