Michael v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi
1- ~ $-48 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN.
245 1/2017 MICHAEL . . . .Petitioner Through:
Mr. Ashish Upadhayay, Advocates.
versus THE STATE Through:
Respondent Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State/respondent with SI Sumit, Police Station: Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL %
ORDER
04.12.2017 By this present application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks Anticipatory Bail in FIR No. 88/2017 under Section 489D/419/468/472/120B of Indian Penal Code,1860 (herein referred as IPC) registered at Police Station Crime Branch. The case in hand was registered on the basis of secret information received in the office of Central Range, Crime Branch vide DD S No. 04 through an informer that "a person residing in Shastri Nagar prints fake currency notes of Rs. 2000/- and if a raid is conducted the same can be recovered"; that after due intimation to the seniors raid was conducted at H. No. A-619, 2 nd Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi wherein one person namely Imran Khan@ Armaan was apprehended; that 89 counterfeit Indian currency notes of denomination Rs. 2000/- and 54 printed sheets (uncut notes) each Page lof 3 BAIL APPIN. 2451/2017 By:AMULYA
consisting of 4 notes of Rs. 2000/- of total value of Rs. 6.10 Lacs were recovered from his possession; that during interrogation coaccused Imran disclosed that he printed all the currency with the help of the recovered computer and printer for the petitioner Michael@ Bunty; that the petitioner further supplied the same in the market.
Mr. Ashish Upadhayay, counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge sheet reveals that there is no evidence against the petitioner except the disclosure statement; that there is no evidence to the effect that the accused Imran and the petitioner ever remained in contact with each other; that a separate FIR has been lodged against the investigating officer ASI Rakesh by the CBI for asking bribe from the sister of the accused Imran which reveals that there is every possibility of false implication of the petitioner in the present case.
Per contra, Mr. Amit Ahiawat APP for the State vehemently S opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner has failed to join the investigation till date; that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the entire trail of the crime; that the petitioner is likely in possession of other counterfeit Indian currency; that the petitioner even now came twice to collect notes. He further contended that after nonexecution of Non-bailable warrants, process under section 82 Cr.P.0 has been initiated against the petitioner. BAIL APPLN. 2451/2017
In I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and also goPe through the contents of the petition and the record of this case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the investigation is at preliminary stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to effect the recovery of counterfeit notes. Also, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Moreover the petitioner is absconding and has failed to join the investigation till date. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
Before parting with the above order it is made clear that the observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit of the case.
The bail application stands disposed of.
SAN L,J.
December 04, 2017 BAIL APPIN. 2451/2017