Absence of manufacturing evidence and limited recovery of counterfeit notes warrants bail pending trial.

The applicant, Vinod, was arrested on January 29, 2026, by the Police Station Aron, District Guna, in connection with Crime No. 31/2026.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused Makhan and Kalyan, was in possession of two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- with the intent to use them as genuine.

The applicant moved the High Court for bail, contending he is a poor laborer who unwittingly received the notes as wages in Rajasthan and that no manufacturing equipment was recovered from him.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of first bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the nature of the recovery and the duration of the trial.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The court also considered the substantive offences defined under Sections 179 (using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes) and 180 (possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Furthermore, the court relied on the established judicial principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema to the concept of liberty".

The Court examined the gravity of the allegations against the limited recovery of only two counterfeit notes of Rs. 100/-.

It noted the absence of any evidence suggesting the applicant's involvement in the manufacturing, circulation, or transportation of counterfeit currency beyond the immediate possession.

The Court observed that since no machinery or instruments were found with the applicant and he had a plausible explanation regarding his daily wage earnings, the necessity for continued detention was diminished.

Finding that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future and noting the applicant's status as a permanent resident of District Vidisha (reducing flight risk), the court determined that the interests of justice favored the protection of personal liberty over detention.

The holding is subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with the trial, and a mandate not to commit any further offences, failing which the bail would be automatically cancelled.

The Court's direct answer to the issue was that the applicant qualified for bail due to the nature of the allegations and the right to liberty pending a prolonged trial.