Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a criminal appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (Amendment) Act, 2019, challenging the rejection of a bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The application had been made by individuals accused in a case involving multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The case stemmed from a fatal bomb blast that killed an ITBP constable during a security operation.

The Court held that "when there is reasonable ground to believe that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true under UAPA, the Court shall not grant bail to the appellants." Upholding the Special Judge (NIA)'s order dated 14.01.2025, the Division Bench concluded that the statutory bar under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA was attracted, and no case was made out for bail. The Court also directed the trial court to endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within six months, subject to legal and procedural limitations.

Also Read: SEBI Can Levy Interest From Adjudication Order Date Even If Not Mentioned | Supreme Court Says Liability Under SEBI Act Applies Retrospectively Through Statutory Mandate

The matter involved a criminal appeal preferred by Bhupendra Netam @ Bhupendar Dhruw, Mohanlal Yadav @ Mohan Yadav, and Lakhanlal Yadav @ Lakhan Yadav against the order passed by the Special Judge (NIA)/Sessions Judge, Raipur. The order rejected their application seeking bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The appellants were charged with serious offences including Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 121, and 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39, and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The charges arose from an incident that occurred on 17.11.2023 at approximately 3:40 PM, following the conclusion of voting in the region. The deceased, Constable Jogendra Kumar of the ITBP, was returning with security personnel when a deliberate bomb blast occurred near Badegobra, resulting in his death. Based on this incident, Crime No. 94/2023 was registered at Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

The appellants approached the Special Judge (NIA), Raipur, seeking bail, asserting their innocence. It was argued that they were innocent villagers falsely implicated in the crime based solely on suspicion. Their counsel, Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, contended that the accused had no links with the incident or any banned organization, and no incriminating material had been recovered. The only items recovered—agricultural tools like Rapa, Gaiti, and Sabbal—were common household tools and lacked probative value.

It was further submitted that the appellants had been arrested on 14.06.2024 and were not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, allegedly violating Article 22 of the Constitution. It was asserted that their names did not appear in the FIR, and no eyewitness account existed to implicate them. The defense argued that the seizure of material occurred after an eight-month delay, making it highly doubtful. The appellants also claimed to be sole breadwinners and permanent residents with no risk of absconding.

In response, counsel for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, opposed the bail plea, stating that strong evidence demonstrated the appellants' active involvement in the terrorist operation executed by CPI (Maoist). It was submitted that the act targeted polling staff and security forces, resulting in the death of a constable, and that the accused served as Over Ground Workers (OGWs) for the banned organization.

According to the NIA, material evidence including detonators, switches, and wires was recovered pursuant to disclosures made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Witness statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. corroborated the accused's involvement in conspiracy meetings and logistical support to Maoist cadres. The agency stated that the gravity of the charges and the security of the State warranted the rejection of bail.

The NIA relied on several precedents, including:

• National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1

• Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40

• Afzal Khan @ Babu Murtuzakhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 499

• State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21

• Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 2024

Additional reliance was placed on Kerala High Court judgments:

• Mohammed Nainar v. State of Kerala, 2011 CRLJ 1729

• Thasleem v. State of Kerala, 2016 (1) KLT 721

The Court extensively reviewed the statutory framework, particularly Section 43D (5) of the UAPA, stating "...such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the Report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."

It was further observed: "The section does not create an absolute bar against bail in every circumstance. Judicial pronouncements... clarify that at the stage of considering bail, the Court must not conduct a roving inquiry into the merits of the prosecution’s case but only ascertain whether the accusations are prima facie supported by the materials on record."

Referencing Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the Bench noted: "...something more is required to be kept in mind in view of the special provisions contained in Section 43D of the 1967 Act..."

Quoting from Mohammed Nainar, the Bench recorded: "...the nature of the charge is a vital factor, and the nature of evidence is also pertinent in considering the question of bail."

On the application of precedents, the Court stated: "In the case of Afzal Khan... the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case involving the security of the State, bail should ordinarily be rejected."

The Court concluded: "...the prosecution has placed sufficient material on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the appellants in the larger conspiracy... Mere prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the serious and grave nature of allegations..."

The Court dismissed the appeal with the following directions: "We find that the impugned order passed by the Learned Special Court (NIA), Raipur rejecting the bail application reflects a correct appreciation of facts, materials on record, and the law applicable to such cases."

Also Read: Bail Not Automatic For Juvenile In Heinous Offence Cases | Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief Citing Grave Allegations And Preliminary Assessment To Try As Adult

It further recorded: "This Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the said order warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction."

In relation to the trial, the Court directed: "This Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this judgment in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment and the appellant is directed to cooperate with the trial."

Finally, administrative compliance was mandated: "Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Bhupendra Netam & Ors. v. Union of India

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:34404-DB

Case Number: CRA No. 318 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru