Pendency of Several Criminal Cases Cannot Be the Basis to Refuse Bail: P&H High Court in Counterfeit Currency Case

In a notable judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Anil Kumar, alias Kakku, who was implicated in a counterfeit currency case, stressing the application of established legal principles even for individuals with multiple criminal charges. The ruling, delivered by Hon’ble Justice N.S. Shekhawat, underscored the importance of ensuring fair legal procedures regardless of the accused's criminal history.

Anil Kumar was arrested on September 30, 2023, after being found in possession of 118 counterfeit currency notes of ₹500 denomination. The arrest followed a tip-off received by ASI Tarsem Singh, leading to Kumar's apprehension in the jurisdiction of Police Station Ratia. The FIR was lodged under Sections 489-A, 489-B, and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.

The court referred to key Supreme Court judgments, including "Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P." and "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P.," which state that the presence of multiple criminal cases cannot be the sole ground for denying bail. These rulings highlight that each bail application must be evaluated on its own merits, without undue prejudice from the accused's past.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Sekhon, argued that Anil Kumar was falsely implicated and no actual recovery of counterfeit notes was made. He also pointed out that the notes allegedly recovered could easily be procured from toy shops. Moreover, the defense emphasized that no public witness corroborated the police's version, and Kumar had been granted bail in several other cases, questioning the necessity of his continued detention.

The Deputy Advocate General, Mr. M.S. Bajwa, opposed the bail plea, highlighting Kumar's involvement in multiple cases, including a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Despite his criminal record, the court considered the principles laid out by the Supreme Court regarding the non-prejudicial assessment of bail applications.

Justice Shekhawat set forth several stringent conditions for granting bail to Anil Kumar:

Kumar must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

He must attend all court hearings.

He should not leave the jurisdiction without court permission.

Kumar must surrender any passport or submit an affidavit if he does not possess one.

He must provide his residence and mobile contact details, updating the court on any changes.

Engagement in any further criminal activity during the trial period would be viewed seriously.

The trial court could impose additional conditions, including requiring two local sureties.

Quotes from the Judgment:

Justice Shekhawat noted, "The pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be the basis to refuse the prayer of bail," reflecting the sentiments expressed in the Supreme Court's earlier rulings. He added, "The petitioner has made out a case for bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal principles impartially. It also serves as a reminder that every accused is entitled to a fair assessment of their bail plea, irrespective of their criminal background. The bail granted to Anil Kumar, subject to stringent conditions, reflects a balanced approach aimed at ensuring justice while safeguarding public interest.

Date of Decision: July 11, 2024

Anil Kumar @ Kakku vs. State of Punjab