Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.
This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected for non prosecution by the Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore.
It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the accused has been falsely implicated and a false recovery has been shown from his possession. It has also been submitted that there is connecting link evidence against co-accused Sajid, who confessed his guilty. The case of the present applicant is totally distinguishable from the case of the Sajid, who had links with one Afzal. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the alleged recovery of fake currency notes to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- cannot be relied upon because there are no independent witness to the recovery. The alleged witness are two T.T.Is , who were prepared for witness the recovery one day prior to the incident. It is further submitted that there is no evidence except the recovery, which is not supported by independent witness, hence the applicant is entitled to bail.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed and has submitted that the involvement of the applicant is fully proved. Fake currency of Rs. 1,25,000/- was recovered from the possession of the applicant, who was carrying this currency in the pocket of his underwear. He has further submitted that the T.T.I. by no stretch of imagination can be deemed not to be in independent witnesses. It has further been submitted that since the C.B.I. team had prior information that the accused would travel by Farakka Express and he was in possession of fake currency notes, hence the witnesses were prepared well in advance to witness the recovery and by no stretch of imagination they can be called to be interested witnesses, hence the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Per Contra learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that none of the passengers travelling with the applicant or the persons present at the platform have been made witness to the recovery.
In reply, learned counsel for the C.B.I., has submitted that an explanation has been given by the C.B.I. that how after the accused was de-boarded from the train, people collected and when they were asked to join the C.B.I. proceeding, they left on the pretext that they had their own schedule and had to brought the train.
Keeping in view the huge recovery affected from the person of the applicant and keeping in view that such type of acts of circulation of fake currency makes direct adverse impact on the economy of the country. In view of the facts and circumstances the case, I do not find it fit case for bail.
Accordingly, bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 14.7.2016 Anurag/-