Circulation Of Fake Currency Threatens Economic Security: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Charged Under UAPA
The Delhi High Court denied bail to an accused who has been in jail for two years, considering the seriousness of the UAPA charges related to circulating fake Indian currency. The Court stated that the circulation of fake currency severely threatens national economic security and asserted that bail cannot be granted if the allegations against the accused are prima facie true.A division bench...
The Delhi High Court denied bail to an accused who has been in jail for two years, considering the seriousness of the UAPA charges related to circulating fake Indian currency.
The Court stated that the circulation of fake currency severely threatens national economic security and asserted that bail cannot be granted if the allegations against the accused are prima facie true.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma were considering the appeal against order of the Trial Court rejecting the bail of the appellant/accused under the UAPA.
The appellant/accused was charged under Section 18 of UAPA, which penalises conspiracy, attempt to commit and facilitating a 'terrorist act'. Under Section 18 UAPA, the punishment is between five years to life imprisonment.
The Court referred to Section 15 of UAPA, which considers actions affecting the economic security of the country, including the circulation of high-quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, as a 'terrorist act'.
It observed that the circulation of counterfeit currency threatens national economic security and can severely impact the economy. Further, it noted that those involved in such circulation often use covert networks, avoiding usual communication channels and clandestinely introduce fake currency into the market.
“Penetration of networks related to fake currency can pose a grave challenge for the investigation agency as well” it said.
The Court stated that the threshold for granting bail under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA is quite high. Under the provision, the accused cannot be granted bail if the court opines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against accused are 'prima facie true'.
The Court referred to the judgment of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2024 INSC 92), where the Supreme Court prescribed 'twin prong test' for determining a bail application under UAPA. Under the twin prong test, the court first needs to consider whether sufficient reasons exist to reject bail to accused based on the police diary and chargesheet. Then as a part of second prong, the court needs to apply the 'tripod test', which is applying the general principles for grant of bail i.e., flight risk, influencing of witnesses and tampering of evidence. In this case, the Apex Court had stated that in UAPA cases, bail is the exception and jail is the rule.
In the present case, the High Court noted that in the disclosure statement by the appellant, he admits that one co-accused had asked him to deliver Indian currency to unknown persons. The chargesheet reveals that the appellant frequently communicated with co-accused and based on forensic reports of voice messages, it is alleged that the appellant gave Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 20,000 on two occasions to a co-accused.
Further, a prosecution witness stated that appellant used to run a money exchange counter and that one co-accused used to pick up and drop bundles of burkha cloth at the appellant's counter. When the police seized high-quality counterfeit Indian currency from the airport from a co-accused, the currency was hidden in a bundle of cloth.
Taking these facts into consideration, the Court noted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant was an active player in the circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian currency.
“At this stage, the evidence on record does not point to the innocence of the Appellant, but on the contrary prima facie points to the fact that the Appellant is involved in facilitating the circulation of high-quality counterfeit Indian currency.”
It noted that the trial is ongoing in the present case and two witnesses have been examined. The appellant has been in custody for two years. It refused to grant bail to the accused “Considering the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 18 of the UAPA, and the present stage of the trial…”
It thus upheld the order of the Trial Court.
Case title: Abdul Wahid Alias Saddam vs. National Investigation Agency (CRL.A. 283/2024)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 888