SUROJIT MANDAL Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the order dtd. 26/3/2021 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with N.I.A. 01 of 2020 dtd. 4/3/2020 under Ss. 120B/489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 16, 18 and 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with the present case.

(2.) The prosecution case, as levelled against the appellant is to the effect that the appellant had been financing, aiding and abetting the circulation of high quality counterfeit currency notes in conspiracy with co-accused persons viz., Senaul Sk. @ Senaul, A-1, Akramul, A-2 and Enamul Hoque, A-3. On 21/1/2020, high quality FICNs valued at Rs.2,46,000.00 and Rs.1,00,000.00 were seized from A-1 and A-2 respectively. On 1/2/2020 pursuant to the leading statement of A-1, another consignment of high quality FICNs were seized from Enamul Hoque, A-3. Investigation into the crime disclosed active telephonic communication between the appellant, A-1 and A-2 on and from December, 2019. In fact, on the day prior to the apprehension of A-1 and A-2, there were telephonic conversations between the appellant and the accused persons. A sum of Rs.1,38,000.00 was also transferred from the account of the appellant and his sister-in-law to the account of A-2 on 16/1/2020 and 17/1/2020 - couple of days prior to recovery of the FICNs. Statement of protected witness also corroborates the monetary transactions for purchase of FICNs by the appellant. Appellant was arrested on 30/1/2021 and is in custody for more than a year.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant argues that the ingredients of the offences under Ss. 16, 18 and 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are not disclosed in the instant case. No high quality FICNs were seized from his possession. He was belatedly arrested on the basis of flimsy and legally inadmissible evidence. He, accordingly, submits that the statutory presumption under Sec. 43-D(5) of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is attracted in the instant case.