- Case
- RAMESH HANAMANT SAVALATOT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 18-03-2025)
- Law
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Facts: The applicant, Ramesh Hanamant Savalatot, is accused no. 5 in Crime No. 500/2024 registered at Tembhurni Police Station, Solapur, for offences punishable under Sections 178, 180, 181, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, related to counterfeiting currency. The FIR alleges the applicant participated in counterfeiting, and a machine used for printing counterfeit currency is allegedly owned by him. ₹65 lacs has already been seized.
Procedural Posture: The applicant filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Sessions Judge at Barshi rejected the pre-arrest bail application, leading to the present application before the High Court.
Issue: Should anticipatory bail be granted to the applicant, considering the allegations of counterfeiting currency, the seriousness of the offense, and the potential need for custodial interrogation?
Holding: No, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Reasoning: The Court considered the gravity of the crime, the necessity of the applicant's physical presence for interrogation to complete the investigation, and the possibility of the applicant pressurizing witnesses and tampering with evidence. The Court cited Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another and C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma, emphasizing that the prima facie case against the accused should not be ignored and that custodial interrogation can be crucial for disinterring information. The Court stated, "We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code." The Court concluded that no case was made out to grant protection to the applicant, given the allegations and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
