Court denies bail in fake currency note scam


JAMMU: CJM Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh rejected bail applications of four accused involved in fake currency-note scam.
While rejecting bail applications of Rajesh Ganjoo, Vipan Pandita, Rohit Sharma and Sachin Kumar, the Court observed that evidences collected by Police and further investigation would reveal racket of preparation and circulation of fake and counterfeit currency, which came to spotlight not on basis of tip-off that concerned police received but on basis of a formal complaint, which complainant lodged with Police after a fake currency note of Rs 500 was tendered to him by accused Sachin Kumar and Rohit Sharma against purchase of a commodity (cigarettes) from his shop. During further investigation, it came to fore that the accused Vipan Pandita and Rakesh Ganjoo are indulged in preparation of fake currency notes of various denominations and thereafter put the same into circulation through likes of accused Sachin Kumar and Rohit Sharma. Not only fake currency notes were recovered from accused Vipan Pandita but necessary material and apparatus used for preparation of fake currency was also recovered from accused Rakesh Ganjoo. The evidences collected during investigation therefore un-haltingly suggest that the four accused, who are petitioners herein, are dramatise-personae (vital characters) in this entire process of making/preparation of fake currency notes and thereafter putting same to circulation amongst innocent and unsuspecting public at large for their personal gains. The Modus Operandi employed by four accused to circulate fake and counterfeit currency notes only depicts the tell tale signs of burgeoning engagement that they have with each other in order to carry out aforesaid illegal activity having far reaching and deleterious economic manifestations as well. It is noteworthy that offences involved carry punishment upto life imprisonment and thus, are grave and heinous.
CJM Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh observed that thus, having regard to evidence showing prima facie involvement of petitioners/accused in the commission of offences under sections 489-B, 489-D and 120-B of IPC, the nature and gravity of allegations, severity of punishment that the offences carry (the punishment for offences under sections 489-B and 489-D of IPC is up to life imprisonment) and considering the far reaching impact on public at large of the allegations alluded to petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out by petitioners at this stage more particularly when the investigations is still under-going and many vital aspects thereof are yet to be addressed. With these observations, Court rejected the bail applications.