In Shiv Lal v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026, decided 3 November 2026), Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court dismissed a third application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a counterfeit currency prosecution under Sections 489A to 489D read with 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code — while directing the trial court to examine the material recovery witnesses expeditiously and permitting the accused to renew his plea thereafter.
The case in one view
| Case | Shiv Lal v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3445/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Sachin Datta |
| Decided | 3 November 2026 |
| FIR | No. 226/2023, PS Crime Branch — Sections 489A/489B/489C/489D/120B/34 IPC (counterfeit currency) |
| Trial | SC No. 1190/2024, ASJ-02 (East), Karkardooma Courts |
| Outcome | Third bail application dismissed; recovery witnesses to be examined expeditiously; renewal permitted |
The prosecution’s case
Counterfeit notes were recovered from two co-accused on 22 September 2023. The applicant was arrested two days later in Ajmer, with counterfeit currency of Rs 1,00,000 allegedly recovered from him. The State’s case went further than possession: it painted him as the central figure of a counterfeit-printing syndicate — the printing setup was recovered at his instance, a purchase invoice for it bore his name, and he was named in other FIRs in Rajasthan.
The defence pressed over three years of custody and a structural stall in the trial: an unresolved question whether the case must be tried by a Special Court under Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, given the nature of counterfeit-currency offences.
Three applications, one standard
The first bail application was dismissed on merits on 24 July 2025; the second was withdrawn on 10 March 2026. For the third, the question was whether anything material had changed. The court found nothing: the material recovery witnesses were still unexamined, and the applicant’s role remained as alleged. On parity, the court applied Ramesh Bhavan Rathod — parity turns on the role attributed to each accused, not on the bare fact that a co-accused is out — and on antecedents and the risk of reoffending it drew on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar. Trial delay was weighed, but held relevant rather than decisive in the face of the alleged central role.
Case management instead of release
What distinguishes the order is its remedial design. Rather than a bare dismissal, the court built a timetable:
Why this structure matters
Counterfeit currency cases sit at an uncomfortable intersection: offences grave enough to be scheduled under the NIA Act, trials that often hinge on a handful of recovery witnesses, and accused persons whose custody lengthens while forum questions linger. The order channels all three pressures productively. The prosecution keeps its custody of an alleged syndicate head, but on a clock; the defence loses the application but gains a concrete, near-term trigger for renewal; and the trial court receives directions that convert an open-ended delay into a four-week decision and a short-date witness schedule.
For practitioners: where a successive bail application is weak on changed circumstances, consider asking in the alternative for trial-expedition directions with liberty to renew. Courts increasingly prefer structured timelines to repeated, unstructured bail litigation.
The BNSS frame
Regular bail before the High Court is now governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The substantive offences here remain under the IPC because the FIR dates to 2023; for conduct after 1 July 2024, counterfeiting of currency is dealt with under Section 178 and following of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The principles governing successive applications, parity and delay are unchanged by the transition.
Frequently Asked Questions
When is a successive bail application maintainable?
A second or third bail application requires a material change in circumstances — further custody with a stalled trial, new evidence, or a point not previously considered. Here the first application was dismissed on merits in July 2025 and the second withdrawn in March 2026; the court found no material change since, and the material recovery witnesses remained unexamined.
Why did parity with the co-accused fail?
Parity is not an arithmetic rule. Applying Ramesh Bhavan Rathod, the court held that parity turns on the role attributed to each accused. The applicant was alleged to be the central figure of the counterfeit-printing syndicate — the printing setup was recovered at his instance and a purchase invoice bore his name — which distinguished him from the co-accused who got bail.
Did three years of custody count for nothing?
Custody length was treated as relevant but not decisive, given the applicant's alleged central role, the nature of the offence, and his being named in other FIRs in Rajasthan. The court balanced delay against gravity by directing expedited examination of the material recovery witnesses rather than ordering release.
What exactly can the accused do now?
The trial court must decide within four weeks whether the case belongs before a Special Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act, and examine the recovery witnesses on short dates if the trial continues. The accused may renew his bail prayer once those witnesses are examined, or after six months, whichever is earlier.