Lokesh Yadav vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 August, 2025

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Lokesh Yadav vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 August, 2025

1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 226/2023 registered under Sections 489B, 489C and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Crime Branch. Subsequently, a chargesheet has also been filed in the said FIR against the Applicant under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 120B and 34 of the IPC.

2. Briefly, the case of the Prosecution against the Applicant is as follows:

2.1. On 22nd September, 2023, secret information was received by ASI 1 "BNSS"

"Cr.P.C."

BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 1 of 9

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 26/08/2025 at 22:19:42 Ajay Kumar at the office of ER-1, Crime Branch, that a person named Shakoor Mohammad would be visiting near Akshardham Metro Station, along with his accomplice, the Applicant, Lokesh Yadav, for delivery of high-quality counterfeit Indian currency. On the basis of this information, a police team was formed and a police constable, posing as a decoy customer, was sent to the location with ₹5,000/- to strike a deal with them for supply of counterfeit currency. When the accused persons arrived at the spot to handover ₹10,000/- in counterfeit notes, they were immediately apprehended and identified. Upon search, Fake Indian Currency Notes4 amounting to ₹5 Lakhs was recovered from Shakoor, whereas FICN amounting to ₹1 Lakh was recovered from the Applicant. Accordingly, the subject FIR was registered, and investigation was taken up. Both Shakoor and the Applicant were arrested on 23rd September, 2023. 2.2 During interrogation, both the accused disclosed that one Himanshu Jain gave them the total recovered ₹6 Lakhs with the instruction to exchange the same in Delhi. Subsequently, on 23rd September, 2023, accused Himanshu Jain was arrested near Jaipur Road, Ajmer Rajasthan and a Maruti Swift car was seized from his possession, along with FICN of ₹1 Lakh.

2.3 During his interrogation, accused Himanshu Jain disclosed that FICN of ₹7 Lakhs was actually given to him by Shakoor, after procuring it from co-accused Shivlal. Thereafter, Himanshu gave ₹6 Lakhs to the Applicant and co-accused Shakoor for exchanging it in Delhi and kept the remaining ₹1 Lakh with himself.

"IPC"

"FICN"

BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 2 of 9

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 26/08/2025 at 22:19:42 2.4 On the basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused Himanshu Jain and Shakoor Mohammed, as well as the technical surveillance of their mobile numbers, Shivlal and another co-accused Sanjay were arrested in from the Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan, while they were travelling in a Hundai Creta Car. FICN of ₹1 Lakh was recovered from Shivlal, whereas FICN of ₹50,000/- were recovered from Sanjay.

2.5 All arrested accused persons were then subjected to sustained interrogation, wherein they were confronted with one another's accounts. Investigation revealed that the accused persons had set up a covert set-up for printing and manufacturing of FICN in Ajmer, Rajasthan. It was further discovered that while Shivlal, Shakoor and Sanjay were tasked with printing and cutting the counterfeit, the Applicant and Himanshu were tasked with exchanging the FICN with genuine currency. It was also found that Shakoor used to give a fine touch to the fake currency with the help of chemicals and ink.

2.6. The Call Details Records5 of all of the accused persons, including the Applicant, revealed that they were in constant contact with one another, thus establishing connivance. In fact, it was found that the mobile phone recovered from the Applicant had 2 SIM cards, both of which were procured by co-accused Himanshu Jain. While one SIM card was registered in his name, the other was registered in the name of one Afsal Abdul Zaffar, albeit with the registered address being that of the Applicant. 2.7 Pertinently, on 27th September, 2023, at the instance of Shivlal and co-accused Shakoor, a raid was conducted at H. No. 1047, Ganesh Wadi, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer, where huge quantities of FICN and other BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 3 of 9 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 26/08/2025 at 22:19:42 incriminating materials were recovered and seized from the spot. Particularly, FICN amounting to ₹1,28,500/- in the denomination of ₹500/- notes, one sided uncut printed FICN sheets (808 in number) of ₹500/- denomination amounting to ₹4,04,000/-, two sided printed uncut sheets (205 in number) of ₹500 denomination amounting to ₹4,10,000/-, Water mark paper (111), laptop, colour printers, two pen-drives, ink and chemicals, green thread roll, FICN waste paper cuttings were recovered. Further, some documents including a bill of purchase for a lamination machine, ink and other material, issued in the name of the Shivlal were also recovered from the spot.

2.8 On the same day, FICN amounting to ₹1,29,500/-, one CPU, coloured printer and other incremental material were recovered and seized at the instance of Shakoor from his rented house located at H. No. 24, Swatantar Janana Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2.9 The owner of the house which was raided at the instance of Shivlal, upon questioning, stated that he had given the house on rent to him and his brother, Sanjay however, there is no rent agreement to this effect as the brothers did not sign one.

2.10 All of the recovered FICN was sent to the Bank Note Press, Dewas, M.P. for expert opinion, which confirmed that the recovered currency notes were counterfeit. The seized digital and other materials were also sent to the FSL, Rohini, which results are awaited.

2.11 During the course of investigation, it was discovered that Shivlal, Shakoor, Sanjay and others were also arrested in relation to another FIR bearing no. 745/2023 registered under Sections 489B, 489C, 120B and 34 of 5 "CDRs"

BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 4 of 9

This is a digitally signed order.

2.12 After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was submitted before the Trial Court on 19th December, 2023 and the trial proceedings have commenced.

2.13 The bail applications of co-accused Shivlal and Sakoor Mohmmad have been dismissed by this Court, while co-accused Sanjay and Himanshu Jain have been granted bail by this Court in the present case. 2.14 The bail application of the Applicant was previously dismissed as withdrawn before this Court by order dated 28th August, 2024. Thereafter, his bail application before the Trial Court was dismissed on merits by order dated 24th February, 2025.

3. Counsel for the Applicant urges the following grounds for grant of bail:

3.1 The Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated this case.

The alleged recovery relied upon by the Prosecution was, in fact, planted by the police, and no recovery was actually made from the Applicant. Furthermore, there is no independent eyewitness to the alleged recovery, and the entire case of the Prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence. 3.2 The Applicant is entitled to be granted bail on the principle of parity with co-accused Sanjay, who was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 9th January, 2025 passed in Bail Appln. No. 3502/2024. Further, co-accused Himanshu Jain was also released on regular bail by this Court on 20 th May, 2025 in Bail Appln. No. 854/2025. As per the order framing charges dated 2nd June, 2025, the Applicant has been charged along with co-accused Himanshu Jain for the offences under Sections 489A/489B/489C/34/120B BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 5 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

3.3 The Applicant has no previous convictions. He has been in custody since 22nd September, 2023, investigation is complete, and chargesheet stands filed. Pertinently, the charges in the present case have also been framed recently, pursuant to orders passed by this Court. As such, considering the number of witnesses, the trial in the case is likely to take some time. In these circumstances, the Applicant's continued incarceration would amount to punitive detention at the pre-trial stage, thereby depriving him of his personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, strongly opposes the present bail application, on the following grounds:

4.1. The Applicant, in furtherance of a common intention with co-accused Shakoor Mohammad, proceeded near Akshardham, Delhi, where he negotiated the rate for counterfeit currency with a decoy customer. He was also present at the location at the time of delivery of counterfeit currency in exchange for ₹5,000/- in genuine currency from the said decoy customer.

His participation in the transaction forms an integral part of the execution of the offence.

4.2. Additionally, counterfeit currency amounting to ₹1,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of the Applicant. It is alleged that he, in conspiracy and collusion with his co-accused, committed the grave offence of circulating counterfeit currency with the intent to cause harm to the Indian economy. Such conduct constitutes a serious offence under the relevant provisions of law.

BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 6 of 9

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 26/08/2025 at 22:19:42 4.3. The CDR analysis of the mobile phones recovered from the Applicant reveals that he was in constant communication with the other co-accused since a long time, which clearly points to his active involvement in the case.

5. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions urged by the parties. Since the Applicant has placed reliance on the principle of parity with co-accused Sanjay and Himanshu Jain, it becomes necessary to assess whether their roles are comparable. While granting bail to the aforesaid co- accused, this Court had noted that the investigation qua them was complete, and the role ascribed to them was limited, absent any direct linkage to the manufacturing process.

6. In the present case, on a perusal of the material on record, it emerges that the role of the Applicant was also limited, similar to that of Himanshu and Sanjay. The Prosecution has not been able to demonstrate prima facie material to indicate that the Applicant was also involved in printing or manufacturing of the counterfeit currency, unlike Shiv Lal and Shakoor Mohammed. Moreover, the specific role ascribed to him is that of facilitating the exchange of FICN with genuine currency. At the time of his arrest, the Applicant was apprehended with FICN of ₹1 Lakh, but no other incriminating material was found at his instance.

7. As per the Prosecution's own case, the role attributed to the Applicant and co-accused Himanshu Jain is similar, i.e., to facilitate the exchange of FICN with genuine currency. Furthermore, as per the order dated 2nd June, 2025, both the Applicant and Himanshu Jain have been charged for similar offences. Notably, the Applicant and Himanshu Jain have not been charged under Section 489D of the IPC, which pertains to the offence of making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 7 of 9 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 26/08/2025 at 22:19:42 notes or bank-notes. In view of these factors, the Applicant's plea for parity with co-accused Himanshu Jain merits due consideration.

8. Further the Prosecution's case against the Applicant is based on the CDR connectivity between him and all of the accused, which allegedly shows that he was in regular contact with them over a period of time. However, in the opinion of the Court, mere CDR connectivity with the co- accused, without any other corroborating material demonstrating his active involvement as a key member of the syndicate, cannot, at this stage become a ground to deny him bail.

9. In view of the nature of the evidence, this Court finds that the Applicant's role is similar to that of co-accused Sanjay and Himanshu Jain. It is further important to note that the Applicant has no prior antecedents Therefore, the plea of parity is accepted.

10. As per the latest nominal roll on record, the Applicant has been in custody as an under-trial for a period of 1 year, 10 months and 21 days as on 19th August, 2025, and the investigation qua him has concluded, charges have been framed, and the trial has commenced. It is well settled that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.6

11. The Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Metropolitan Magistrate/ Jail Superintendent, on the following conditions:

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 8 of 9

This is a digitally signed order.

b. 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; c. The Applicant shall, under no circumstance, leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court;

d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed;

e. 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;

f. 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.

12. 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.

13. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and should also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

14. The bail application is allowed and disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms.

SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 25, 2025/nk BAIL APPLN. 2583/2025 Page 9 of 9 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 26/08/2025 at 22:19:42

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders