SUBBARAMA IYER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to release an under-trial prisoner on bail. The applicant is accused No. 3 in P. E No. 7 of 1952 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum. The case against him is that he and the remaining three accused persons in the case entered into a criminal conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit currency notes, that he had possession of such notes and that he actually attempted to pass them as genuine. These constitute offences under S. 120, 489 (C) and 489 (B) respectively of the Indian penal Code. An offence under S. 489 (B) is non-bailable and is liable to be punished with imprisonment for life. The lower Courts have refused to admit the applicant to bail and the question is whether this court should interfere.

(2.) WHEN the applicant made his application before the sessions Judge of Trivandrum to enlarge him on bail the Police had not filed their charge-sheet but the learned judge had the opportunity to peruse the same before he passed the order rejecting the application. The charge sheet was filed in between the date of the application and the date of the order. On a perusal of the same it is seen that the prosecution proposes to examine as many as five witnesses to connect the accused with the commission of the offences he is charged with. Looking at the nature of the evidence proposed to be adduced in the case against the applicant I cannot bring myself to hold that his case can be brought within the inhibition against releasing a person charged with the commission of a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life or the more severe punishment prescribed by law. Except the oral testimony of five isolated or unconnected witnesses the prosecution would seem to have in their possession, if I might say so, no tangible or material proof to connect the applicant with the offences forming the subject of the charge. I would therefore allow this application and direct the applicant to be admitted to bail on terms to be referred to presently.

(3.) BESIDES the foregoing there is yet another reason for me to interfere with the Sessions Judge's exercise of his discretion to refuse bail to the applicant. The learned judge would appear to have been misled to think that persuant to information received from the applicant counterfeit currency notes of a face value of over seventy thousand rupees have been recovered from the house of another accused in the case. The truth would however seem to be that while the Police recovered large number of counterfeit currency notes from the house of the 4th accused, in the case the prosecution has no case that it was persuant to any information received from the applicant. This aspect is clear from the charge sheet. The assertion the applicant's counsel made before me that the judge had made a mistake with respect to it was not sought to be controverted by the learned Public prosecutor. In these circumstances I cannot accede to the argument that I should not in this case interfere with the Sessions Judge's refusal to admit the applicant to bail.