Court says over two years’ custody is not excessive in view of serious UAPA allegations, recovery of counterfeit notes, and progress of trial
The Patna High Court has refused to grant bail to Md. Waris, an accused in a case involving the recovery of a large quantity of counterfeit Indian currency and alleged links to a cross-border fake currency network with terror-related implications.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra dismissed the criminal appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the Special Judge, NIA, Patna’s order rejecting regular bail.
According to the prosecution, Bihar Police intercepted three persons on a motorcycle near Kharwa Pool in East Champaran on 5 September 2024 after receiving secret information that they were carrying fake Indian currency notes. The police allegedly recovered counterfeit notes worth Rs. 1,95,000 in total from the three accused. Of this, Rs. 50,000 in fake Rs. 500 notes was allegedly recovered from Md. Waris.
The prosecution case further states that during interrogation, the accused disclosed that the fake currency was being brought from Pakistan via Nepal and routed onward through Delhi to a co-accused in Jammu and Kashmir. On this basis, the case, initially registered by Bihar Police under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency by an order of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The NIA subsequently filed a supplementary charge-sheet invoking Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that he had been in custody for about two years and that only eight out of 91 charge-sheet witnesses had been examined, urging that prolonged incarceration justified bail. A further objection was raised that after Bihar Police had filed its charge-sheet, the NIA continued investigation without obtaining prior permission of the court under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, the High Court noted that the appellant had neither challenged the order transferring the investigation to the NIA nor challenged the NIA’s first supplementary charge-sheet. The Bench held that such objections could not be entertained at the stage of deciding a bail appeal.
The appellant had also initially contended that written grounds of arrest were not served on him. But after examining the record, especially the search and seizure list showing recovery of counterfeit notes from his possession, his counsel chose not to press that point. The court therefore declined to examine that issue.
Rejecting the bail plea, the Bench held that the accusations were grave, involving possession of a huge quantity of high-denomination counterfeit notes and allegations of transporting fake currency from Pakistan via Nepal for delivery to Kashmir. The court observed that the appellant had been in custody for only “a little over two years,” which could not be termed inordinate, particularly when trial had already commenced and eight witnesses had been examined.
The High Court also took note of the NIA’s submission that two NIA courts were now functional and that the trial was likely to be expedited. While dismissing the appeal, the Bench directed the trial court to speed up proceedings and conduct the trial in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in CBI v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali, which requires day-to-day trial unless adjournment becomes imperative for cogent reasons.
The ruling underscores the strict approach adopted by courts in bail matters involving counterfeit currency operations allegedly linked to unlawful and terrorist activities.
Bottom Line:
Bail under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act was refused in a case involving recovery of huge quantity of counterfeit Indian currency and offences under the UAPA and BNS; incarceration of a little over two years was held not to be inordinate when trial had commenced and was likely to be expedited.
Statutory provision(s): Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 317(5), 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 178, 179, 180, 181 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Md. Waris v. Union of India, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2997391
