Mr. Vimal Tyagi, Mr. Balaji Pathak, Mr. Rajendra Singh, Mr. Paras Sharma Ms. Annu v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 1675/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ BAIL APPLN. 1675/2025HARSHDEEP THAKUR .....Applicant Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Mr. Vimal Tyagi, Mr. Balaji Pathak, Mr. Rajendra Singh, Mr. Paras Sharma & Ms. Annu versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State. SI Vikas Kumar, NR & STF / Special Cell. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 23.05.2025 1.The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 276/2021 dated 11.11.2021, registered at Police Station Special Cell, for offences under Sections 489B/489C/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). 2.Acting on a secret information, a raid was conducted by the Police on 10.11.2021 and accused Karan Singh was apprehended. He was found to be in possession of fake Indian currency notes (‘FICN’) in the denomination of ₹100 valued for ₹30,000/-. At the instance of accused Karan Singh, further arrests were made and fake currencies were also recovered. 3.It is alleged that during the course of investigation, one accused Harish Girdhar led to the recovery of FICN. He was also arrested and fake currency valued for ₹1,20,000/- was recovered. The source of the fake currency was disclosed to be one This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:16:30 BAIL APPLN. 1675/2025 Page 2 of 4 Vikramjeet Singh in Punjab. 4.Further investigation led to the arrest of the applicant and fake currency valued for ₹50,000/- is stated to have been recovered from the applicant. It is alleged that on the disclosure of the applicant; further recovery of fake currency was made and equipment / tools used in printing the fake currency were also seized. 5.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant has been languishing in custody for the last more than 3 years, and that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. 6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the applicant. She submits that the applicant is involved in the printing of fake currency notes and a recovery of fake currency valued for ₹50,000/- was made from the applicant. 7.I have heard the counsels and perused the material on record. 8.The allegation against the applicant is that he was found in possession of ₹50,000/- which was counterfeit currency, and that upon the disclosure of the applicant further recovery of fake currency was made and equipment / tools used in printing the fake currency were also seized. 9.The applicant is in custody since 12.11.2021 and has not even been released on interim bail at any stage. The applicant has spent around three years and six months in custody. It is pointed out that only 11 out of 28 witnesses have been examined. It cannot be denied that the applicant has spent substantial period of time in custody, and that the trial is not likely to conclude in the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:16:30 BAIL APPLN. 1675/2025 Page 3 of 4 near future. 10.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb : AIR 2021 SC 712, has held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible, and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. 11.The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. 12.It is also pointed out that accused Karan Singh and Harish Girdhar have already been admitted on bail by this Court by orders dated 18.05.2022 and 11.04.2023 respectively passed in BAIL APPLN. 829/2022 and BAIL APPLN. 654/2023. 13.Consequently, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 14.In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following conditions: a.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever; b.The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the learned Trial Court; c.The applicant shall appear before the learned This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:16:30 BAIL APPLN. 1675/2025 Page 4 of 4 Trial Court on every date of hearing, unless his appearance is exempted; d.The applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; e.The applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times. 15.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 16.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 17.The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, JMAY 23, 2025 “SK”