Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010097082026 2026:GAU-AS:12520 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1402/2026 BALGOVIND JAISWAL S/O JAWALA PRASAD JAISWAL R/O BHARSEDA, SARAI, P.S. SARAI, DIST. SINGRAULI, MADHYA PRADESH. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S C DAS, RAKESH DHAR,D R BONGSHIARY,P BURAGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 31-08-2026 Heard Mr. S. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Balgovind Jaiswal in connection with Guwahati G. R. P. S. Case No. 178/2025 registered under Sections Page No.# 2/4 61(2)/318(4)/62/178/180 BNS, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 60/2026. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel that the petitioner is in custody since last 8 months 29 days and he got arrested in connection with this case on 04.12.2025. Further, he is an practicing advocate of Madhya Pradesh and also practicing Jabalpur High Court. He came to Guwahati for Kamakhya darshan as well as to meet one of his client, who hails from Assam and he received the fake currency from the said client on good faith that those are genuine Indian currency notes. But he got arrested in connection with this case and some fake currency notes with Rs.500/- denominations is also recovered from his possession. 5. However, considering his length of detention, the accused petitioner may be released on bail and there is no chance of evading the trial of this case as his Identity Card and other related documents are already been seized by police. 6. Further, he submitted that after filing of the charge sheet, four dates have already gone, but till date, the prosecution could not examine any witnesses and hence, the possibility of disposal of the case within a reasonable time also cannot be expected at this stage. To substantiate his plea, Mr. Das, also relied on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra passed in Crl. Appeal No. 4758/2024 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 13366/2024, wherein also it has been observed that “an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any progress, the Court must grant bail.” 7. Accordingly, Mr. Das submitted that considering this aspect of the case vis-à- vis his long incarceration, the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail and he ready to face the trial and also to produce sufficient surety, if he is allowed to go on bail by this Court. Page No.# 3/4 8. Mr. Das, learned APP raised vehement objection and submitted that the fake currency note of Rs. 1, 41,500/- was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner. More so, being a legal practitioner, he knows every consequences of receiving/possessing the fake currency notes. The case is already charge sheeted and the charge of this case was framed only on 29.04.2026 and thereafter, the case was fixed on 25.05.2026 and 19.06.2026 and some subsequent date fixes for hearing, but those are not reflected in the TCR. Thus, it cannot be considered that there is prolonged delay in the trial of the case to get the benefit of bail by the accused petitioner. More so, the petitioner hails from Madhya Pradesh and thus, the probability of his absconding and difficulty in procuring his attendance also cannot be denied at this stage. Accordingly, Mr. Das, learned APP raised objection and submitted that this is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the TCR as well as the case record. 10. It reveals that the recovery of fake currency of Rs.1,41,500/- with Rs.500/- denominations was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and after enquiry made by the I.O., the case is accordingly charge sheeted against the present petitioner. 11. It is a fact that the accused petitioner is in custody since last 8 months 29 days and till date the prosecution could not examine any witness in support of their case. But at the same time, it is also seen that after filing of the charge sheet, the charge of the case was framed only on 29.04.2026 and thereafter, 3-4 days consecutive dates have gone, but the prosecution witnesses did not turn up. But this cannot be a sole ground for considering the bail application and considering the period of trial for 3-4 months also cannot be considered as a prolonged delay in Page No.# 4/4 the trial. It is not a case that the trial is been pending since 3-4 years without commencement of the trial. However, it cannot be denied that within 3-4 consecutive dates, the prosecution could not produce any evidence to prove their case. 12. So considering all this aspect of the case, vis-à-vis the nature of allegation against the present petitioner, who is a legal practitioner, this Court is of the opinion that bail cannot be granted exclusively on the period of incarceration and the same cannot also be considered as a prolonged delay in the trial. But the learned Trial Court is hereby asked to take all necessary endeavours to procure the attendance of the witnesses for conclusion of the trial within a reasonable period considering that the accused petitioner is in custody for the last 8 months. 13. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant