Absence of independent witnesses and substantial criminal history warrants bail in counterfeit currency and firearm cases.

The applicants, Naseem and Julfkar, were arrested on 01.03.2025 following a police pursuit of a white Swift car suspected of transporting counterfeit currency

The prosecution alleged that the applicants fired upon a police party before their vehicle collided with a pole.

Police reported recovering country-made pistols and packets of currency notes (where only the top and bottom notes were genuine) from both applicants.

The applicants moved the High Court for bail after their applications were rejected by the lower court on 28.03.2025 and 08.04.2025.

They contended that the recovery was planted, no public witnesses were present, and no police personnel were injured despite the alleged firing.

Whether the applicants are entitled to bail considering the nature of the recovery, the lack of independent witnesses, and the period of incarceration

Whether the criminal antecedents of the applicants and the severity of the alleged offenses under the B.N.S. and Arms Act warrant continued judicial custody

The Court considered Sections 109(1) (Attempt to murder), 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 (Offenses related to counterfeit currency) and 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), alongside Section 25/3 of the Arms Act.

It applied the settled principles governing the grant of bail, emphasizing that the maximum punishment for the relevant currency offenses under Section 180 B.N.S. is seven years.

The court underscored the evidentiary requirement of testing police recoveries during trial, particularly when not supported by independent public witnesses.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rests primarily on recoveries made by police officials without the association of any independent public witnesses at the time of arrest.

The Court reasoned that the veracity of such "planted" recoveries is a matter of evidence to be determined during trial.

It noted that despite the allegation of firing upon the police, no injuries were sustained by the police party.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the applicants have been in custody since March 2025 and that applicant Naseem has no criminal history, while Julfkar has only one unrelated pending case.

The Court found that since the trial would take considerable time and the applicants are permanent residents with no likelihood of absconding, continued incarceration was not justified.

The High Court allowed both bail applications.

It ordered the release of Naseem and Julfkar subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and do not reflect on the merits of the trial.