MOHAMMAD SHADAB Vs. POLICE INSPECTOR, PANAJI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 CrPC for his release on bail in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. It was his case that an offence came to be registered at the Agacaim Police Station on 27/08/2019 at 16.50 hours vide the FIR No.55 of 2019 on the allegation that the applicant alongwith one Muzzamil Hayat had committed the said offence based on the complaint of Prasad Temkar working for Strike Casino Bambolim as a Senior HR Manager. The applicant had furnished his Aadhar Card and PAN Card to the Casino officials while tendering the money and receiving the Casino chips at the said Casino. He came to be arrested on 28/08/2019 on the premise that fake currency worth Rs. 75,500/- was seized from his person. The second accused Hayat was released on bail by the Sessions Judge while the application of the applicant came to be rejected. A charge sheet has been filed before the JMFC, Panaji. That apart the applicant had filed the counter complainant which was a part of the Final Report dated 25/11/2019.

(2.) It was his case that prima facie the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 489B and 489C IPC were not spelt out. The very fact that his counter complaint formed an integral part of the Final Report spelt out that the applicant had no reason to believe that the amounts handed over to him by the second accused Hayat were counterfeit notes. Even otherwise the statement of facts as set out in his counter complaint was supported by the material/documents collected by the Investigating Officer during his investigation. The applicant had been falsely implicated by the second accused on account of business dealings. The applicant therefore prayed for his release on bail on such terms and conditions as imposed by this Hon'ble Court. He was a law abiding citizen of India, innocent and was ready to stand trial in order to vindicate his innocence and there was no any possibility of tampering with the evidence or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, hence the necessary relief.

(3.) Heard Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant who contended that it was necessary to appreciate whether the applicant at all had any knowledge that the notes were counterfeit in order to attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 489B and 489C IPC. The principal accused had been enlarged on bail and moreover the charge sheet had already been filed by the Police. The applicant had gone to the casino and used his genuine Aadhar Card and disclosed his name while obtaining the chips. If at all he had any intention to cheat, he would not have used his genuine Aadhar Card. He adverted to the complaint, some statements on record and otherwise contended that the offences alleged against him were not punishable with life and the maximum punishment was upto 10 years. He placed reliance in Amit Anand Raikar v. State of Goa and another , 2016 2 BCR(Cri) 186, Mohaadsaeed Ali v. State of Gujarat[Crma (for Regular Bail) No.29631 of 2017, Abeed Basha v. State of Karnataka[Cri.Petition No.7617 of 2017] and in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2012 1 SCC 40 in support of his case.