Read Time: 05 minutes

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bivas Pattanayak, and Joymalya Bagchi, on Monday denied the bail plea of a an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for financing, aiding and abetting the circulation of high quality counterfeit currency notes. 

It is alleged that the appellant, one Surojit Mondal had been financing, aiding and abetting the circulation of high quality counterfeit currency notes in conspiracy with co-accused persons viz., Senaul Sk. @ Senaul, Akramul,and Enamul Hoque. On 21st January, 2020, high quality FICNs valued at Rs.2,46,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- were seized fromSenaul and Akramul respectively.  Statement of protected witness corroborates the monetary transactions for purchase of FICNs by the appellant. Appellant was arrested on 30th January, 2021 and has been in custody for more than a year.

The appellant via advocate Debasis Kar submitted that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are not disclosed in the instant case. No high quality FICNs were seized from the appellants possession. Kar submitted that the appellant was belatedly arrested on the basis of flimsy and legally inadmissible evidence. 

The Court rejected the contentions of the appellant and held that the materials prima facie give rise to a strong suspicion that the appellant had played an active role in the circulation of high quality of FICNs through other accused persons.

"Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prima facie role of the appellant in the alleged crime is disclosed and the rejection of the prayer for bail by the court below is justified," the Court opined, 

However, since the appellant has been in custody for a year, the Court requested the trial court to take prompt steps for consideration of framing of charge at the earliest, preferably within two months from the next date fixed before the said Court and upon the charge being framed, to take the proceeding to its logical conclusion without unnecessary delay. 

The Court further noted that during the proceedings a statement recorded under S. 164 Cr.P.C. discloses the identity of a protected witness. The Court ordered the trial court to redact such information and stated, 

"...disclosure of identity of the protected witness in such statement clearly defeats the purpose of the aforesaid provision of law. Hence, the trial court is directed to redact the name, address and other particulars of the protected witness from the aforesaid statement and other records immediately. Trial Court is further directed to be more cautious in future and ensure that the identity of the protected witnesses are not divulged."

Surojit Mandal -Vs- National Investigation Agency (NIA)