AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vivek Agarwal, J
This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody
since 08.06.2021 in connection with Crime No.501/2021 registered at Police Station-Hanumantal, Distt.-Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable
under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted that first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.11.2021 with liberty to renew the prayer after expert
prosecution witnesses are examined. It is submitted that witnesses of seizure have been examined and they have turned hostile. Reading statements of
Rahul Vishwakarma (PW-1) and Montu Shrivas (PW-2). It is submitted that both the seizure witnesses are hostile, therefore, now applicant be
enlarged on bail in-as-much as no recovery has been made from his possession except for a colored printer.
Shri Amit Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes this prayer and submits that not only a colored printer but all the material
required that preparation of counter fitted currency has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and merely because witnesses of seizure
have been turned hostile is not sufficient to extend benefit of bail in favour of the applicant specially in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in
case of Modan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1511, wherein it is held that if the evidence of Investigating Officer who recovered the
material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support prosecution
version.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant and the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Modan Singh (supra), I am of the opinion that this is not the appropriate stage to enlarge
the applicant on bail as Investigating Officer is yet to be examined and his testimony will decide whether the seizure is genuine or not.
In above terms, application fails and is dismissed.