2025:BHC-AS:54440 Digitally signed

by CHITRA

C SA H N IT JA R Y A S S A O N N J A A W Y ANE SONAWANE D 20 a 2 te 5 : .12.11

+0530

Chitra Sonawane 11-ba-3117-2025.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Bail Application No.3117 of 2025

Raju @ Ranjitsinh Fatubha Parmar

Age 38 years, Occ. Labour,

R/o. Ranpur Kakriya Chawra,

Tal.- Ranpur, Dist.- Botad. … Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

(Through Nigdi Police Station,

Dist. Pune) … Respondent

----

Mr Chaitanya Mulawkar, a/w Mr Nilesh Waghmode, for the

Applicant.

Mr B B Kulkarni, APP, for Respondent / State.

PSI Mahesh Satpute, Nigdi Police Station, Pune.

----

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 11 December 2025

P.C.:

By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection

with CR No.302 of 2021, registered at Nigdi Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B,

489C, and 489D read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23 June 2021, at approximately 4:00 p.m., accused No.1 was intercepted on a

public roadway situated in front of the Nigdi Cremation Ground, whereupon he was allegedly found in unlawful possession of counterfeit currency notes having a face value of Rs.5,86,000/-. Pursuant to further investigation, it is alleged that accused No.5 and the present applicant (arraigned as accused No.6) utilised a laptop computer and printer purportedly owned by accused No.5 for the purpose of manufacturing and reproducing counterfeit currency notes. The prosecution asserts that these forged currency notes were thereafter delivered to accused Nos.1 to 4 with the intention and object of putting them into circulation.

3. Mr Chaitanya Mulawkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR, and his alleged involvement has surfaced solely on the basis of a co- accused’s statement, which, it is submitted, is inadmissible in evidence and insufficient to establish prima facie culpability. The learned Counsel further submits that the recovery of counterfeit currency notes was effected exclusively from accused No.1, who, notably, has not attributed any role to the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. It is urged that there is no material on record to suggest any direct or indirect nexus between the applicant and the contraband in question.

4. It is further submitted that the applicant is similarly situated, if not on a better footing, than the other co-accused, five out of six of whom have already been enlarged on bail. In particular, reference is made to accused No.3, who, despite having antecedents of a similar nature, has been granted the benefit of bail. The applicant, who has no criminal antecedents to his discredit, is therefore entitled to claim parity in the matter of bail.

5. The learned Counsel further points out that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 10 July 2021. Although the charge sheet has been filed, the trial has not progressed, and charges are yet to be framed. It is submitted that the investigation qua the applicant is complete, and no further recovery or discovery is pending at his instance. In such circumstances, the continued incarceration of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. The applicant is a permanent resident of the jurisdiction, has deep roots in society, and is neither a flight risk nor in a position to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. He is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit and proper to impose.

6. On the other hand, Mr BB Kulkarni, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the applicant’s request for bail. He submits that specific and well-substantiated allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has actively participated in the commission of the offenc