Vikash Kumar Sharma v. State

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J NOVEMBER 27, 2019 na

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 22.11.2019 Date of Decision : 27.11.2019 VIKASH KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI 1. The present application has been filed seeking regular bail in FIR No.37/2016 registered under Sections 489B/489C/120B IPC and Sections 15(a) (iii a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967, at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that the prosecution, in support of its case, has relied on the CDR details between Baljinder Singh, Manga Singh and Vishnu. It is also submitted that the prosecution has only relied upon the CDR details and there is no conversation which has been recorded to prove the conspiracy between the petitioner and the co- accused. It is further submitted that the only material against the present petitioner is the recovery of FICN of Rs.2 lakhs from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even if the prosecution case is believed, no case of 'circulation' is made out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the prosecution case it has been alleged that the petitioner came to receive the consignment on behalf of Baljinder Singh. However, neither Baljinder nor Manga Singh have been made accused but were later cited as witnesses. It is further stated that the intercepted calls between Manga Singh, Baljinder Singh and Vishnu do not mention the name of the present petitioner. It was further argued that the location of the mobile of the petitioner did not match with the place of the arrest and has referred the statement of PW-7 in this regard. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision Syed Abbas Mehdi vs. State reported as 2005 (82) DRJ 570, Umashanker vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported as 2001 (9) SCC 643, Kanchan Mishra @ Anu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2012 (130) DRJ 646 and State of Kerala vs. Raneef reported as (2011) 1 SCC 784. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the mukhiya and sarpanch of the village and has deep roots in the society. 5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that petitioner is a member of syndicate and has been found in possession of "high quality counterfeit notes" and proviso to Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA is attracted in the present case. It is submitted that Baljinder Singh and Manga Singh came in touch with each other during their custody in jail where they hatched the conspiracy to circulate the FICN with the help of one Vishnu who sent the same through Moti Lal. In turn, Baljinder Singh had asked the petitioner to collect the same from Moti Lal. The petitioner came in the car of Baljinder Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner was caught when he had received the said FICN of Rs. 2 lakhs (two wads of FICN of the denomination of Rs.1,000/-) from co-accused Moti Lal from whose possession another FICN of Rs.1 lakh was recovered. It has been submitted that the call detail records establish that the petitioner was in touch with Baljinder Singh as well as Moti Lal. It is submitted that the prosecution has intercepted the voice calls between Baljinder Singh and Manga Singh and the voice samples taken during investigation have matched. It has been further submitted that the investigation with respect to Baljinder Singh @ Lala and Manga Singh has been kept pending. It is submitted that in the Status Report it has been stated that both of them have not been examined and rather that a supplementary charge-sheet against Baljinder Singh @ Lala and Manga Singh will be filed in due course. It was f