The court denied bail based on the applicant's presence at the crime scene and the prosecution's evidence, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges under the BNS Act.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191011240309 of 2024 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Section 61, 62, 178, 179, 180, 181, 318 of the BNS Act 2023.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that in the present offence charge sheet has been filed. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 28.11.2024 and since then the Applicant is in custody. After his arrest the Applicant was also subjected to police remand, and therefore, now the presence of the present Applicant is no more required in the police custody for the purpose of investigation. He further submits that 194 counterfeit currency notes had been recovered from the other co-accused and not from the present Applicant. The Applicant herein has been falsely implicated in commission of the offence in question. It is the case of the prosecution that the Applicant was found printing the counterfeit currency notes, however, no such printing was done by the present Applicant. The premises from which the printing machine was recovered also did not belong to the present Applicant. He has further submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that on the basis of the information gathered by the investigating agency from the other co-accused, the premises was raided by the police authorities and the present Applicant was found present in the said premises and the activity of printing of counterfeit currency notes was going on in the said premises. He further submitted that the investigating officer has further recorded the statement of a person from whom the machine for printing of the conterfeit currency notes had been purchased and the said witness had categorically named the present Applicant. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. As per the case of the prosecution the other co-accused was found conscious possession of the counterfeif Australian Dollar and on the basis of the same the investigation was carried out and the premises was raided by the investigating agency and the Applicant herein was found present in the said premises and the activity of printing of coutnerfeit Australian Dollar was going on in the said premsies. The record further indicates that it was the present Applicant and the other co-accused who had gone to purchase the machinery for printing of the coutnerfeit currency notes.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, no case is made out. The Application is dismissed.