Vijay Veer vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil ...

1.Heard Shri Abhinav Kumar Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite parties.

2.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.I.A./ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, District-Lucknow in Bail Application No.5288 of 2025 (Vijay Veer vs. Sate of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.07 of 2025, under Sections 61 (2), 178, 179, 180 & 181 B.N.S., Police Station-A.T.S. (Gomti Nagar), District-Lucknow whereby the learned Special Judge N.I.A./ ADJ Court No.3, District-Lucknow has rejected the aforesaid bail application of the appellant (Vijay Veer).

3.The present appellant is in jail with effect from 27.06.2025 in Case Crime No.07 of 2025, under Sections 61 (2), 178, 179, 180 & 181 B.N.S., Police Station-A.T.S. (Gomti Nagar), District-Lucknow. This is the case where ATS has already filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons and the charges have been framed on 12.11.2025. The informant (PW-1) is being examined by the learned trial court.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the present appellant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He is a student of (04) B.Tech from Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (Annexure No.2). He has been falsely implicated inasmuch as even if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, the allegation against the present appellant is that he has provided some papers to co-accused persons to print and prepare the counterfeit currency in the denomination of Rs.100, 200 & 500. His confessional statement has been recorded wherein he has stated that he used to procure those Watermarks Papers (Prescribed Papers) from one Chinese Company in the name of Alibaba.Com.

5.On being asked from Shri S.N. Tilhari as to whether such papers are prohibited papers or those papers may not be procured by any one, Shri Tilhari has stated that he has no specific instructions on that point and the aforesaid point may be demonstrated before the learned trial court during course of trial. However, he has stated that those papers have been used to prepare the counterfeit currency, therefore, the present appellant has committed an offence.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that no counterfeit currency has been recovered from the possession of the present appellant or his pointing out and Rs.370/- has been recovered from his possession and those currency was not the counterfeit currency. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, the testimony of the informant is being recorded, so there is no likelihood to tamper any evidence and in that case, he may be enlarged on bail considering the fact that he is a student and is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

7.Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application by submitting that the present appellant was indulged in illegal work of preparing and printing the counterfeit currency with the co-accused persons, namely, Siddharth Jha and Gajendra Yadav. The prosecution is having some Whatsapp Chat of those persons from the Sim Card of Gajendra Yadav and from one flat of Gajendra Yadav some counterfeit currency have been recovered, therefore, this bail application may be rejected and the order under challenge dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.I.A./ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, District-Lucknow may be maintained.

8.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the case and without giving any observation affecting the trial which is going on, considering the fact that no incriminating material has been recovered from possession of the present appellant or his pointing out, he has allegedly supplied some papers to the co-accused persons who prepared and printed the counterfeit currency, those papers (Watermark Papers) are not the prohibited items, the present appellant is a student pursuing B.Tech from Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, we find it appropriate that the present appellant may be enlarged on bail.

9.Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.07.2025 is set aside.

10. Let the present appellant (Vijay Veer) involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the trial proceedings;

(ii) The appellant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

(iii) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Special Court at the time of furnishing sureties.

11. Learned trial court is expected to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

May7,2026

Suresh/