1 2025:CGHC:25751-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 432 of 2025 Dhaniram Salam S/o Andharu Salam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Dandhvan, Plotpara, Ps- Farasgaon, District- Narayanpur, Cg ... Appellant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Farasgaon, District- Narayanpur, Cg ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.06.2025 1. This criminal appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 14/01/2025 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Schedule Offence, Narayanpur, District:Narayanpur in Crime No.2/24, by which the appellant's bail application has been rejected as per the provision contained in Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant along with other co-accused persons were involved in carrying out the Naxalite operation. Based on above facts, present crime was registered against the appellant and he was arrested on 19/09/2024. 3. The appellant preferred an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge NIA Act, Narayanpur, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 14/01/2025, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the application for default bail was filed on 28/12/2024 and instead of deciding the same, the court directed the public prosecutor to file report as per the proviso to Section 43 D (2) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 stating the reasons for keeping the accused/ appellant in custody for period more than 90 days. Thereafter, on 31/12/2024, an application was filed by the concerned Investigating Officer seeking extension of custody of the accused which was granted on the ground that other co-accused persons have not been arrested and sanction has not been obtained and judicial custody was extended till 13/1/2025 and thereafter, vide order dated 13/1/2025, it was further extended till 27/1/2025. He contended that it is crystal clear that the application for default bail has been filed before the extension of judicial custody as per the proviso to Section 43 D (2) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was allowed by the court and hence, the extension is immaterial and the appellant was entitled for default bail. 3 He further submits that the learned court below has recorded the finding that the prima facie case is made out against the appellant without considering the settled law that an application for default bail has to be decided without entering into the merits of the case. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned State counsel opposes the application filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has involved in the unlawful activities i.e. Naxalite operation. Hence, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be rejected. 6. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the nature and gravity of the offence and particularly considering the facts that the appellant is claiming the bail not on merits and only claiming bail on default clause, in our opinion, no case is made out. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to revive his prayer of the bail by filing the regular bail application. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep