Bombay High Court
BANDILAL DEVILAL YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered bail application No. 3423 of 2026 filed by Bansilal Devilal Yadav, accused in a case involving alleged fake currency under sections 178, 179, 180 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution relied on two witness statements: one from Accused No.2 alleging that the fake notes were handed to him by the applicant, and a later statement from a third‑party witness, Wasim Akbar, about a loan repayment in counterfeit cash. The defence highlighted the lack of detail, the delayed recording of the third witness’s statement, and the absence of a clear nexus with the present crime. The court, after noting these prima facie deficiencies, granted bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, subject to standard conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and reserved trial on the merits for later.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of the prosecution's evidence to justify denial of bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023?
- Does the delayed statement of the third‑party witness create a reasonable doubt about the applicant's involvement?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 178, 179, 180, 3(5)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
Subjects
- bail
- prima facie
- fake currency
- Section 483 BNSS
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- evidence nexus
Judgment
8. BA 3423-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3423 OF 2026
Bansilal Devilal Yadav .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Digitally
Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate, for the Applicant
signed by
ANAND Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP, for the Respondent – State
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME Date:
2026.09.11
10:48:28 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
+0530
DATE : 09.09.2026
P. C.
1. Heard Mr. Bankapur, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr.
Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
2. This Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in connection with
C.R.No. 23 of 2026 registered with the Chavani Police Station, Nashik
for offences punishable under Sections 178, 179, 180 & 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).
3. The Applicant is arraigned as Accused No. 3 in the present crime.
There are only two witness statements relied upon to indict the role of
Applicant. Accused No. 2 has given a statement because he along with
Accused No. 1 were apprehended while depositing fake currency notes
Anand 1 of 5
8. BA 3423-2026.doc
in the Bank and the Assistant Manager of the Bank red flagged them
and got them arrested. In the statement of Accused No. 2, it is stated
that the said currency notes were given to him by Accused No. 3. No
details of how and when the same were given is not mentioned. That
apart, it is not the prosecution case that the entrio currency notes
which were deposited in the Bank was fake. Only some of the notes of
Rs.500/- therein were counterfeit currency notes. Next the prosecution
has relied upon the statement of a third party prosecution witness
called Wasim Akbar, who has stated that sometime in December, 2025
i. e. precisely one month before the date of the present incident in
question, the said witness had given a hand loan of Rs. 30,000/- to the
Applicant before me and towards repayment of the said loan,
Applicant had repaid him Rs. 12,000/- by Phonepe app and the balance
Rs. 18,000/- was paid by him in cash and that this entire amount of
cash was of fake currency notes. The question that therefore arises in
mind is about the nexus of the witness statement with the present
crime and as to why did the said witness keep quiet for almost one
month and how he did end up recording his statement with the police
only after the present incident in question having occurred on
21.01.2026 qua Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 only. Prosecution is
unable to explain the same at the threshold. Arguable case is made out
Anand 2 of 5
8. BA 3423-2026.doc
by learned Counsel for the Applicant for grant of bail with regard to the
role attributed by the prosecution to the Applicant in the present case
on the basis of the aforesaid prima facie observations. Applicant is
released on bail. Bail Application is granted.
4. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and finding,
Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms
and conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Bansilal Devilal Yadav is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No. 23 of 2026;
(ii) The Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Chavani Police Station, Nashik, once every month, on
the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter
shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;
(iv) The Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of the
Anand 3 of 5
8. BA 3423-2026.doc
trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all
dates, unless specifically exempted. The Applicant shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct
shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of
bail;
(v) The Applicant shall not leave the country without the
prior permission of the Trial Court and shall deposit his
passport with the Trial Court;
(vi) The Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) The Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer
informed of his current residential address and mobile
telephone number and shall forthwith inform the
Investigating Officer of any change in his residential
address or mobile telephone number, as and when such
change occurs; and
(viii) Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
5. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited
Anand 4 of 5
8. BA 3423-2026.doc
for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
6. The Bail Application No. 3423 of 2026 is allowed and disposed
of in the above terms.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)
Anand 5 of 5
Checking your session…