Two years’ custody was not inordinate to justify bail amid serious UAPA allegations.

The appellant challenged the Special Judge, NIA, Patna’s order refusing regular bail in a case arising from the seizure of counterfeit Indian currency.

Police alleged that ₹50,000 in counterfeit notes was recovered from the appellant and that he and his co-accused were involved in transporting counterfeit currency through Nepal and Delhi.

After the Bihar Police filed a charge-sheet, the NIA took over the investigation and filed a supplementary charge-sheet alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

The appellant relied on his period in custody and the pace of trial: he had been in custody for a little over two years, with eight of 91 charge-sheet witnesses examined.

He did not press his contention that written grounds of arrest had not been served, and the Court noted that he had not challenged either the transfer of the investigation to the NIA or its supplementary charge-sheet.

Whether the appellant should be granted bail, having regard to the period of custody, progress of trial, seriousness of the allegations and severity of the alleged offences.

Whether the appellant could raise, in the bail appeal, the objection that the NIA continued the investigation and filed a supplementary charge-sheet without prior permission under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, when he had not challenged the transfer order or supplementary charge-sheet.

Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the order refusing bail.

The prosecution charged the appellant under Sections 317(5), 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 178, 179, 180, 181 and 3(5) of the BNS, and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA.

The Court assessed the bail request in light of the seriousness of the allegations, the quantity of counterfeit currency allegedly recovered, the severity of the punishment attached to the alleged offences, the period of incarceration and the progress of trial.

It also referred to The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali, 2025 INSC 1155, for the direction that trial should proceed day to day unless adjournment is imperative for a cogent reason.

The Court did not decide the merits of the unpressed grounds-of-arrest contention or the cited decision in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan.

The Court considered the alleged recovery of ₹50,000 in counterfeit notes from the appellant and the prosecution allegation that he participated in a cross-border counterfeit-currency operation.

It found that custody of a little over two years was not inordinate in light of the seriousness of the allegations and the severity of the potential punishment; it also noted that the trial had begun and that two NIA courts were functional, with the trial expected to be expedited.

The Court declined to examine the Section 173(8) CrPC objection in the bail appeal because the appellant had not challenged the transfer order or the NIA’s supplementary charge-sheet.

The arrest-grounds contention was not decided because the appellant did not press it.

It directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conduct it day to day, except where adjournment is imperative for a cogent reason, consistent with CBI v. Mir Usman.