Mumbai, Maharashtra – May 20, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has granted bail to Mafatlal Vardaji Purohit, accused of possessing counterfeit currency notes. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge R.M. Sadrani, granted bail citing the lack of criminal antecedents, the accused’s business background, and the need to determine the accused’s knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the currency during trial.
Mafatlal Vardaji Purohit (37), a businessman, was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 168 of 2022, registered at D.B. Marg Police Station. He was charged under sections 489(B) (using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes), 489(C) (possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes),1 and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code2 (IPC).
Details of the Allegations:
According to the prosecution, a person named Jawansingh deposited ₹3,55,000 in a Yes Bank branch. Later, it was discovered that 23 of the ₹2,000 denomination notes were counterfeit. During the investigation, it was revealed that Abdul Gani had asked his employee Tausif to collect ₹6,75,000 from Purohit, which included 50 notes of ₹2,000 denomination. Out of these, 23 notes were deposited in the bank. Abdul Gani returned 27 notes to Purohit, who then allegedly burned them.
Arguments Presented During the Bail Hearing:
Advocate Madan Gupta, representing Purohit, argued that his client is a businessman with a wholesale toy shop and has a turnover in crores. He claimed that Purohit received the money from a wanted accused, Manoj, and paid it to Tausif as instructed by Abdul Gani. He emphasized that the counterfeit notes were difficult to detect, even by machines, and that Purohit burned the remaining notes out of fear. He highlighted the lack of criminal antecedents and relied on a High Court judgment in Munshi Mohammed Ayub Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra.
APP Abhijeet Gondwal and the investigating officer opposed the bail, arguing that the investigation was ongoing, the currency notes might be of high quality, potentially attracting provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the report on the currency notes was pending.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Sadrani, after reviewing the records and hearing both sides, noted the lack of criminal antecedents and Purohit’s business background.
“As per say of the prosecution, there is no criminal antecedents against the applicant. Documents annexed with the applicant support the argument of the advocate for the applicant as businessman,” Judge Sadrani stated in the order.
The court acknowledged that whether Purohit had knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the currency was a matter for trial.
“Whether applicant had knowledge about fake currency is a question of trial,” Judge Sadrani noted.
The court also referred to the High Court judgment cited by the defense, which emphasized the importance of mens rea (guilty intention) in offenses under sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the IPC.
“In view of above observations, whether applicant has reason to believe that currency notes possessed by him are fake is a question of merit. At this stage, considering the documents placed on record, I am inclined to allow the application,” Judge Sadrani concluded.
Conditions of Bail:
The court granted bail to Purohit on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:
- He must provide his detailed address and phone number.
- He must furnish bail before the remand court.
- He must attend D.B. Marg Police Station as and when called by the investigating officer.
- He must not influence witnesses.
- He must not leave India without prior permission of the court.
- Provisional cash bail of the same amount was granted for eight weeks.
Implications of the Decision:
This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the accused’s background, the lack of criminal antecedents, and the importance of mens rea in offenses related to counterfeit currency. It emphasizes that the prosecution must establish the accused’s knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the currency, which is a matter to be determined during trial. The ruling also reflects the court’s balanced approach in granting bail while ensuring the accused’s cooperation with the investigation and adherence to legal procedures.