Mumbai, Maharashtra – June 1, 2022 – Afaq Ahmed Ansar Ahmed Ansari, accused in a counterfeit currency case, has been denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge Rahul R. Bhosale (C.R. No. 55) in Greater Mumbai. The court rejected Criminal Bail Application No. 1015 of 2022, which was filed in Sessions Case No. 439 of 2022 (C.C. No. 198/PW/2022), related to C.R. No. 06/2022 registered with D.C.B. C.I.D. Unit-XI (Dahisar Police Station, C.R. No. 88/2022).

Ansari, originally accused No. 6, faces charges under Sections 489(A to C) (counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.¹

Case Background:

The prosecution alleged that Ansari was involved in a conspiracy to counterfeit and traffic Indian currency. Police apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 4 with counterfeit currency notes worth ₹5 Crore. Subsequently, they raided a hotel room where Ansari and accused Nos. 5 and 7 were staying and recovered counterfeit currency worth ₹2 Crore. A laptop seized from Ansari’s possession contained images of ₹2,000 currency notes.

Arguments and Court’s Reasoning:

Ansari’s defense argued that he was falsely implicated, had no involvement in the crime, and was merely seeking employment. They claimed no counterfeit currency was recovered from his direct custody, and he was not proven to be intentionally involved in counterfeiting. They also asserted that he was not present when the ₹2 Crore was seized and that the prosecution lacked evidence of his telephonic contact with other accused, except accused No. 3.

The prosecution countered that Ansari was found in the hotel room with the counterfeit currency and that his laptop contained images of the currency notes. They argued that this evidence, along with witness statements, established his involvement in counterfeiting and trafficking. They also raised concerns about Ansari tampering with evidence and continuing his unlawful activities if granted bail.

The court, after reviewing the case materials and hearing arguments, rejected Ansari’s bail application. It noted that the accusations against him were similar to those against accused No. 5, whose bail application had already been rejected. The court found that Ansari failed to provide sufficient grounds to differentiate his case.

“Upon perusal of the present application and particularly the reply of prosecution in the backdrop of entire material in charge-sheet it is noticed that the accusations against present applicant are quite similar with the accusations against accused no.5-Pradeep. This Court has already rejected Cri. Bail Application No.315/2022 on 13.05.2022 which was filed by said accused no.5-Pradeep. Therefore, the present applicant was expected to give the grounds for differentiating his case from the case of said accused no.5 for succeeding in the present application. Applicant in fact without touching the said requirement has came with present huge application,” Judge Bhosale stated.

The court emphasized the severity of the charges, which carry a life imprisonment sentence, and the need for Ansari to prove his entitlement to bail under Section 439 read with Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found that the evidence, including the recovered counterfeit currency and the images on Ansari’s laptop, established his involvement in the crime.

“It can be easily concluded that the applicant was quite aware of the said currency was counterfeit as well as his active participation in counterfeiting said currency can not be ruled out. The possession of such a huge purported currency of Rs.2 Crore itself brings on record the intention of possessors including applicant would be of trafficking,” Judge Bhosale noted.

The court also expressed concerns about the potential impact of Ansari’s activities on the local financial system and the risk of him tampering with evidence.

Decision:

Judge Bhosale rejected the bail application, concluding that Ansari had not proven his entitlement to bail.

The certified copy of the judgment was issued on June 1, 2022. This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the severity of the offense, the evidence presented, and the potential impact on the financial system when denying bail in a counterfeit currency case.