Bail granted based on parity and completion of investigation in alleged counterfeit currency possession under BNS.

The applicant, Baleshwar, was apprehended by the police during a vehicle check based on specific information. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was found in possession of two bundles of forged ₹500 currency notes, totaling ₹1,00,000

Following an interrogation, police conducted a raid on the applicant's rented accommodation, where two co-accused were allegedly found with additional fake currency and manufacturing equipment, including chemicals and a printer

An F.I.R. (No. 230 of 2025) was registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee on 28.06.2025

The applicant, in judicial custody since 28.06.2025, sought regular bail after his initial application was rejected by the lower court on 09.10.2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial considering the nature of the recovery and the principle of parity with co-accused

The court considered the provisions of Sections 179 (using as genuine, forged currency), 180 (possession of forged currency), and 181 (making or possessing instruments for forging currency) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.)

The court also applied the principles of parity in bail jurisprudence, noting the previous grant of anticipatory and regular bail to co-accused persons under similar circumstances

Finally, the court relied on the general principles governing the grant of bail, including the duration of custody, the filing of the charge sheet, and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time

The Court evaluated the applicant’s contention that Section 179 B.N.S. was not attracted because the applicant was not caught using the currency, but was only in alleged possession at a private residence

The Court noted a procedural point regarding the delay in the F.I.R., which was lodged a day after the incident

Crucially, the Court observed that the Investigating Officer had already filed the charge sheet, thereby reducing the risk of tampering with evidence

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that co-accused Manish Kumar and Himanshu had already been granted regular bail, and another co-accused had received anticipatory bail

Finding no strong grounds for continued detention and noting the applicant had been in custody for nearly ten months, the Court determined that the applicant met the criteria for release

The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of Baleshwar

The release was made subject to conditions, including the execution of a personal bond with two reliable sureties, cooperation with the investigation, regular attendance at trial, and a prohibition on leaving the country without permission

The Court clarified that violation of any conditions would lead to the cancellation of bail