Bail denied where substantial counterfeit currency recovery provides prima facie material; knowledge remains a matter of evidence.

The applicant was arrested on 13 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 159/2026 registered at Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, for offences under Sections 178, 179 and 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to counterfeit currency.

Acting on secret information, the police intercepted the applicant at New Bus Stand, Kanker, searched a blue backpack allegedly in his possession, and recovered 11 bundles of ₹500 notes and other notes printed on A-4 paper.

The notes were allegedly found to lack the security features of genuine currency and were seized.

The prosecution alleged that counterfeit currency amounting to ₹6,54,000 was recovered from the applicant.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody, and lack of proof of knowledge or intention to circulate counterfeit currency.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending trial for offences under Sections 178, 179 and 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the alleged recovery of counterfeit currency amounting to ₹6,54,000, together with the prima facie material on record, justified denial of bail notwithstanding the applicant’s contention that his knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the currency remained unproven.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 178, 179 and 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the prima facie material available, and the alleged recovery from the accused.

The Court also recognised that the applicant’s knowledge that the currency was counterfeit was a matter requiring determination on evidence, rather than conclusively deciding that question at the bail stage.

The Court noted that a substantial quantity of alleged counterfeit currency—₹6,54,000—had been recovered from the applicant’s possession and seized during the investigation.

Although the applicant argued that mere recovery did not establish the requisite knowledge or intention, the Court held that the issue of his knowledge was evidentiary and could not, at this stage, outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material on record.

Considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the alleged recovery, and the prosecution material, the Court found no ground to exercise its discretion in favour of bail.

The trial court was nevertheless permitted to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to it for necessary compliance.