2025:UHC:8468 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2025 SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO. 57 of 2025 Akil ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The First Bail Application (BA1 No.1655 of 2024) was rejected on 13.11.2024. 2. Applicant-Akil is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 179, 180, 182(1) and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.25 of 2024, registered at Police Station Mallital, District Nainital. 3. Heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 4. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate submitted that new ground for filing the present application is that the 1 2025:UHC:8468 charge-sheet has been filed and the statements of PW1 and PW2 have been recorded. 5. According to the prosecution, on 06.08.2024, the son of the informant was sitting in his shop. Two persons came there and bought goods. One of them took one currency note of Rs.500/- from his pocket and gave to the informant’s son and went away after taking the balance. On suspicion, the said currency note was checked. The informant’s son found it counterfeit. Applicant was arrested, whereas other person managed to escape from the spot. According to the First Information Report, other currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and other counterfeit currency notes were also recovered. 6. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate contended that according to the First Information Report, four counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were recovered from the possession of the applicant, but as per the recovery memo, three counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were recovered. 7. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The alleged fake currency was not 2 2025:UHC:8468 recovered from the possession of the applicant and even if the story of the prosecution regarding recovery is accepted, then it is a matter of trial, whether the applicant was having knowledge about the alleged recovery of currency notes being fake or not and mere physical possession without the knowledge would not make him liable for the alleged offences. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW1 and PW2. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun has also not confirmed the prosecution case. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun has suggested sending the alleged recovered currency notes to the Currency Note Press, Nasik. 8. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, and, he is in custody since 06.08.2024. 9. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder has opposed this bail application. 10. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused persons in detention during the 3 2025:UHC:8468 trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 12. The Second Bail Application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant – Akil be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Date: 22.09.2025 JKJ/Pant 4