[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nasir Usmangani Chaudhary vs National Investigation Agency And Anr on 10 February, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
HEMANT
2026:BHC-AS:7165-DB
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
H.C. SHIV 47.app1276.25.doc
Digitally signed by
HEMANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.02.11 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
19:14:59 +0300
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1276 OF 2025
Nasir Usmangani Chaudhary
Age : 60 years, Occ : Business
R/o : Room No.8, Ground Floor,
"F" Wing Jamatia Jamuria Colony
Near MTNL, Bandra (W)
Mumbai 400 050 ... Appellant
vs.
1. National Investigation Agency
7th Floor, MTNL Telephone
Exchange Building, Peddar Road,
Cumballa Hill,
Mumbai 400 026 ...
2. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
Mr. Tabish Mooman with Arshi Shaikh for the Appellant.
Mr. Chintan Shah with Mr. Sandeep Sadawarte for Respondent-NIA.
Smt. Prajakta P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Akhilesh Singh, PI, NIA Mumbai.
CORAM :
A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 28th JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT :
(PER SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
1) This Appeal is by Original Accused No.2 under Section 21(4) of
the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (for short 'NIA Act') read with
Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short
'UAPA') seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned Order dated 6 th
H.C. SHIV 47.app1276.25.doc
May 2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions
Court, Greater Mumbai, in Special Case No.329 of 2023, under Sections
489(A), 489(B), 489(C) read with 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(for short 'I.P.C.') and under Section 15(1)(a)(iiia), 16 & 18 of the UAPA, for
his release on bail in the said case during the pendency of trial.
2) The prosecution case is that, based on secret information, on
17th November, 2021 at about 15.00 hours, near Ganesh Talkies, Sai Mandir,
Charai, Naupada, Thane West, Officers of Naupada Police Station detained
the accused No.1 namely Riyaz Abdul Shikilkar (A-1) and during his
personal search in the presence of independent panch witnesses, 149
counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs.2000 denomination, having face
value of Rs.2,98,000/- and some other articles were seized. Thereafter, the
A-1 was taken to Naupada Police Station where FIR was registered vide Cr.
R. No.340/2021, dated 18th November, 2021 under Section 489C of IPC, on
the basis of the complaint of Pramod M. Jadhav [HC No.3203] attached to
Central Crime Br. Thane City and the A-1 was arrested on 18 th November,
2021. During investigation it transpired that the A-1 and the Appellant used
to receive instructions on WhatsApp call from Mobile No. +60146950130
belonging to one person named 'Uncle'. The Appellant used to be in contact
with the A-1. Said person 'Uncle' is Javed Chikna @ Javed Patel, a
designated individual terrorist as per Fourth Schedule of UAPA. It also
transpired that the A-1, Appellant and said Javed Chikna @ Javed Patel
H.C. SHIV 47.app1276.25.doc
conspired and printed the said high quality FICNs of Rs.2,000/-
denomination with an intent to traffic, circulate and use the same in open
market to damage the economy of India. Hence, the Appellant was arrested
on 26th November, 2021. During police custody, the Appellant voluntarily
disclosed that said 'Uncle' @ Javed Patel @ Javed Chikna had sent him one
High Quality FICN of denomination of Rs.2000/- which he had hidden
behind a under-construction Masjid. The Appellant then led the police and
panchas to the said place and produced one High Quality FICN of Rs.2000/-
denomination. The seized currency notes were forwarded to Nashik Press
Maharashtra and its report confirmed the fact that the seized currency are
high quality FICNs. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed against both accused
on 6th April, 2022. Accused No.3 Mohd. Fayaaz Shikilkar (A-3) was also
found involved in the crime and therefore supplementary charge-sheet was
filed in the case.
3) Mr. Tabish Mooman, the learned counsel for the Appellant
submitted that, the material evidence as to the alleged seizure of the FICN
from the possession of the Appellant is not only suspicious but also not
reliable. It indicates that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in this
case. He has submitted that the Appellant has been behind bars for four
years. The prosecution will examine large number of witnesses. As such, the
trial is not likely to be over in the recent future. Therefore, he submitted
that the Appellant may be released on bail.
H.C. SHIV 47.app1276.25.doc
4) Per contra, Mr. Chintan Shah, the learned Spl. P. P. appearing
for the Respondent No.1 strongly opposed the Appeal. He submitted that,
there is considerable evidence against the Appellant showing his
involvement in the crime. The Appellant was connected with the wanted
accused namely 'Uncle' @ Javed Chikna @ Javed Patel, a designated
individual terrorist as per Fourth Schedule of UAPA. This offence was
committed to harm the nation's economy. As such, the offence is serious
and therefore bail may be refused.
5) It is an admitted fact that, the Appellant is behind bars for
more than four years and still the trial is going on. In the case of Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 1, involving similar offence, the
Appellant therein was in jail as an under-trial prisoner for four years; the
trial court was not able to even proceed to frame charge and the
prosecution intended to examine not less than eighty witnesses. In the
backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that howsoever serious a
crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the
Constitution of India. Bail not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the
requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner
at trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 17 observed thus :
"17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including
the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or
protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a
1 (2024) 9 SCC 813
H.C. SHIV 47.app1276.25.doc
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting
agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the
ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of
the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the
crime."
The same principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Shri
Gurbaksh Singh Sibba and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2 wherein in para 27 it
observed thus :
"27. ... ... The object of bail is to secure the attendance
of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be
applied in the solution of the question whether bail
should be granted or refused is whether it is probable
that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is
indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment.... ....".
In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 3, in
paragraph 23, the Hon'ble supreme Court has observed that, laws which
impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public
interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the
individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living
conditions, more often than not, appalling. In view of thereof, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court directed to release the Appellant on bail.
2 (1980) 2 SCC 565
3 (2023) 18 SCC 166
H.C. SHIV 47.app1276.25.doc
6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
aforesaid principles are clearly applicable to the Appellant. Accordingly, we
are of the view that the Appellant is entitled to be released on bail during
the pendency of the trial against him in the aforesaid case.
6.1) Hence, the following Order :-
(a) The impugned Order dated 6th May, 2024 passed below
Exh. 24 in Special Case No. 329 of 2023 by the learned
Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai,
is quashed and set-aside.
(b) The Appellant be enlarged on bail, on his executing PR
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent
local sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
learned Special Court.
(c) After his release from jail, the Appellant shall report to
the office of the National Investigating Agency, Mumbai
(Respondent No. 1), on the first Saturday of every month
between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the
trial.
(d) The Appellant shall not, either himself or through any
other person, tamper with the prosecution evidence and give
threats or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.
(e) The Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
trial court without the prior permission of the trial court, till
the conclusion of the trial.
H.C. SHIV 47.app1276.25.doc
(f) The Appellant shall surrender his passport, if any,
before the trial court, before his actual release from jail.
(g) The Appellant shall inform his latest place of residence
and mobile number immediately after being released and/or
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to
time to the court seized of the matter and to the Investigating
Agency i.e. the Respondent herein.
(h) The Appellant to co-operate in concluding the trial of
present case and attend the trial court on all dates, unless
specifically exempted, by giving reasons in writing.
(i) If there is breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of
Appellant's bail.
7) Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
8) It is made clear that, the observations made herein are prima
facie in nature and for deciding the present Appeal. The learned Special
Judge shall decide the main case on its own merits, in accordance with
law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
