GOVIND KARA KALA MANGARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms.H.B.Punani, learned A.P.P., waives service of rule on behalf of the State. This is a Successive Bail Application preferred by the applicant on ground of delay in commencement and conclusion of trial. The applicant is facing charges of offence punishable under Section 489 -A, 489-B and 489-C read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. He came to be arrested on 4th July, 2004 and his application came to be rejected on 18th of January, 2005 subsequent to filing of charge-sheet.

(2.) The only question that requires to be considered by this Court is whether the case of the applicant for bail deserves reconsideration in light of the contentions raised before this Court by learned Advocate for the applicant, on the ground of delay in commencement and conclusion of trial. Learned Advocate Mr.Pandya for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail since 4th of July, 2004. Nearly 13 and months, the trial is yet not commenced. He submitted that in light of the decision of the Apex Court in 1996 S.C.C. (CRIMINAL) 519 and 1996 S.C.C. (CRIMINAL) 589, the case of the applicant may be considered by this Court. Mr.Pandya submitted that for limited purpose of appreciating nature of allegations and likely sentenced that may be imposed on conviction ignoring chances of acquittal, the Court may examine the case of the applicant.

(3.) Mr.Pandya submitted that the case against the applicant is that at his instance there was a discovery of fake currency notes to the tune of Rs.29,900/. Mr.Pandya submitted that the discovery is from an open field and not from a closed premises to which one may have exclusive access. He also submitted that co-accused persons who are alleged to have engaged themselves in printing of notes, have been enlarged on bail. According to Mr.Pandya case would fall, at the most under Section 489-C i.e. mere possession of counterfeit currency notes which is punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, and therefore, the case of the applicant may be considered favourably. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision in case of R.D.Upadhya (supra) particularly, in the direction given in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the judgment, so also, to paragraph No.4 of the Common Cause judgment (supra) and submitted that the discretion of the Court is not taken away by this judgment nor a mandate is given to the Court to release the applicant on bail, but, considering the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of R.D.Upadhya (supra), the Court may use its discretion adopting same analogy in present case, as in that case persons accused of offences of counterfeit currency have been favourably considered. It is therefore, submitted that the applications be entertained.