Mumbai: Noting that counterfeit currency causes significant economic harm and funds criminal and terrorist activities, the Bombay High Court has rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of Ramesh Savalatot, accused of owning a printing press involved in producing fake notes.

The court also noted that considering the gravity of the crime, the physical presence of the applicant for interrogation was required.

Savalatot was booked in connection with an FIR registered at Tembhurni Police Station, Solapur in relation to owning the printing machine used for counterfeiting. He sought pre-arrest bail after his plea was rejected by the Sessions Court in Barshi on February 14. Of the seven accused, five are in custody, while one remains absconding.

According to the prosecution, the police seized Rs 65 lakh in counterfeit currency, and investigations revealed that Savalatot owned the printing machine used for counterfeiting. The co-accused allegedly named him as the person who procured the machine, and call data records (CDR) showed frequent communication between Savalatot and another accused, Hiramani.

The defense argued that Savalatot was falsely implicated based on suspicion and that since the investigation was complete, his custodial interrogation was unnecessary. However, the prosecution contended that the crime was serious, amounting to an offense against the nation, warranting his custody for further investigation.

Justice Rajesh Patil said that the case emerged from a police operation based on a tip-off. Authorities tracked a Nexon car and, upon interception, found unexplained cash with the driver. A subsequent raid at a co-accused’s house led to the discovery of an ultraviolet machine and counterfeit currency. The co-accused named Savalatot as the machine’s owner.

“Counterfeit currency leads to substantial economic losses to the country. Such monies are used to finance criminal networks and terrorist activities,” the judge said on March 18.

Further observing that the full extent of the crime was yet to be uncovered, the court stated: “Considering the gravity of the crime, the physical presence of the applicant for interrogation is necessary for completion of investigation. Moreover, the possibility of pressurizing and threatening witnesses and tampering with evidence is much higher if the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail.”

Citing Supreme Court rulings, the HC concluded that no grounds existed to grant Savalatot protection from arrest. His anticipatory bail application was accordingly rejected.