Absconding during trial and serious nature of counterfeit currency offences disentitle appellant to second bail application.

The appellant was implicated in Crime No. 39/2024 for the circulation and printing of counterfeit Indian currency notes after police intercepted a vehicle and recovered ₹3,80,00,000/- from a co-accused, Arun Sidar.

Although the charge-sheet was filed on 16.07.2024, the appellant was arrested nearly a year later on 24.06.2025, having allegedly been absconding while the trial for co-accused persons commenced.

The appellant filed this second bail application under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act (the first having been dismissed on 03.09.2025) after the Special Judge (NIA Act), Bilaspur, rejected his regular bail plea on 23.02.2026.

Counsel for the appellant argued that no recovery was made from him and that the co-accused whose statement implicated him had already been acquitted.

The Court applied Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, regarding appeals against bail orders for scheduled offences.

It considered Sections 489B (using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes) and 489C (possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, noting these are classified as serious scheduled offences under the NIA Act.

The Court also relied on the principle that the risk of a defendant absconding is a primary factor in denying bail.

The Court observed that the allegations involve grave economic offenses affecting the national financial system.

While the appellant argued that his implication was based solely on memorandum statements and that a co-accused was acquitted, the Court found these grounds insufficient to override his prior conduct.

Specifically, the Court noted that during the pendency of the original trial, the appellant absconded, necessitating the separation of his case from the acquitted co-accused.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that if released on bail, there is a high likelihood the appellant would abscond again, thus failing to find any "change in circumstances" to justify a second bail application.

The Court held that the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's history of absconding outweighed the grounds for bail.

However, noting that the appellant has been in jail since 24.06.2025 and prosecution witnesses were failing to appear, the Court directed the Director General of Police to ensure the presence of witnesses and ordered the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months.