Shiv Lal vs The State (Govt Of Nct Delhi)
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 03.11.2026
CNR No. DLHC010389362026
#
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026
+
SHIV LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.R. Jangu and Mr. K. R. Jangu,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State with
ASI Vinay Tyagi, PS Crime Branch
ER-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant/ petitioner
seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) in the case arising out of FIR No. 226/2023 under
Sections 489A/489B/489C/489D/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(‘IPC’), registered at P.S. Crime Branch (Delhi). The trial is pending before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
in SC No. 1190/2024.
2. The present application for bail is the third bail application filed on
behalf of the present petitioner/applicant before this Court.
3. The previous bail application filed on behalf of the applicant was
dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 in
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 1 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
BAIL APPLN. 809/2025. The relevant portion of the said order reads as
under:
4. Thereafter, another bail application which was preferred by the
applicant, being BAIL APPLN. 4910/2025, was disposed of as ‘ not pressed’
vide order dated 10.03.2026. The same reads as under:
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 2 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
5. It is noticed that the order dated 10.03.2026 records the submissions of the
learned APP for the State to the effect that the material recovery witnesses will
be produced before the trial Court for recording of their evidence.
6. The case of the prosecution, as per the Status Report, is that, on
22.09.2023, counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the accused Sakoor
Mohammad and Lokesh Yadav. On 24.09.2023, the applicant, Shiv Lal, was
arrested in Ajmer, Rajasthan and counterfeit notes amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-
were recovered from him. Importantly, the Status Report, inter alia , records as
under:
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 3 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 4 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 5 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 6 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of the
applicant was not mentioned in the original FIR and that the applicant has
been in incarceration for more than three years. It is further submitted that the
trial is now held up on account of a question raised by the learned ASJ,
initially vide order dated 05.08.2026, and thereafter as recorded in the order
dated 11.08.2026, inter alia , as to whether the case is triable only by a Special
Court designated under Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 (‘NIA Act’). The order dated 11.08.2026, inter alia , reads as under:
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 7 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 8 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
8. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the present application
and submits that the petitioner was an active member of the syndicate
engaged in printing counterfeit notes and that the printing setup was
recovered at his instance. It is further submitted that, given the applicant’s
involvement in such illicit activities, there is every likelihood that he will
repeat the offence and influence the witnesses, if released on bail.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of
the parties and perused the record.
10. In the given facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail for
the following reasons:
(i) This is the third successive bail application before this Court.
The first bail application was dismissed on merits on 24.07.2025 and
the second bail application was disposed of as ‘ not pressed ’ on
10.03.2026. There is no material change in circumstances since the said
bail applications were decided, and the material as regards the
applicant’s role and antecedents remains the same. It is stated that the
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 9 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
material recovery witnesses have still not been examined;
(ii) As per the Status Report, a central role is attributed to the applicant
in the racket of printing counterfeit currency; he, along with co-accused
Sakoor Mohammad, is stated to have been tasked with printing the
counterfeit currency. The printing setup is stated to have been
recovered at the instance of the applicant and, as noted in the order
dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court in BAIL APPLN. 809/2025, a
purchase invoice for some of the material, bearing the name of the
applicant, was also recovered; and
(iii) The role of the applicant cannot be equated with that of the
co-accused Sanjay Godara, who has been granted bail; this aspect has
been adverted to at length in the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this
Court in BAIL APPLN. 809/2025.
11. It is well settled that parity, while granting bail, must focus upon the
role of the accused. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana , (2021) 6 SCC 230, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“26. ……The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central
aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus
upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused
who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient
to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity
has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached
to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the
victims is of utmost importance
. The High Court has proceeded on the
basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again
cannot pass muster under the law.”
12. This Court also takes note of the fact that, as per the Status Report, the
applicant is also an accused in FIR No. 745/2023 under Sections
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 10 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
489B/489C/120B/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Beawar City, District Beawar,
Rajasthan, involving the same modus operandi . FIR Nos. 13/2022 and
62/2023, relating to the leak of a public examination paper, and FIR No.
269/2023 under Section 420 IPC are also stated to be registered against him in
Rajasthan. The apprehension that he may repeat the offence, if released on
bail, is therefore not without basis.
13. The character and antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of the
offence being repeated are well-recognised considerations while deciding an
application for bail. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee , (2010)
14 SCC 496, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“ 9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable.
It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed
by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is
equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic
principles
laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It
is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on
bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
and
;
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”
14. No doubt, delay in trial is a relevant consideration. This Court has taken
note of the order dated 05.08.2026, referred to by the applicant, and of the
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 11 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
submission that the delay is not attributable to the applicant. It is also noticed
that the petitioner’s second bail application was not pressed on 10.03.2026 so
that the material recovery witnesses could be examined, and the said
witnesses are yet to be examined.
15. However, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the
role attributed to the applicant and his antecedents, as noted hereinabove, this
Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by directing the
expeditious examination of the material recovery witnesses, rather than by
enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage.
16. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court, while declining the
present bail application, issues the following directions:
(i) The trial Court is requested to decide the questions of the
competent Court, as set out in the order dated 11.08.2026, within a
period of four weeks from today. If the trial is to continue before it, it
shall examine the material recovery witnesses on short dates and shall
endeavour to conclude the said exercise as expeditiously as possible. If
the case is to be tried by the Special Court, the records shall be
transmitted forthwith;
(ii) The State shall ensure the presence of the concerned witnesses
on each date of hearing before the trial Court;
(iii) The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after
the material recovery witnesses have been examined, or after a period
of six months, whichever is earlier.
17. The present application stands disposed of in the above terms.
18. It is clarified that nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 12 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
19. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court for
information and necessary compliance.
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/ at/ka
BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 Page 13 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:41:49