2025:CGHC:15284-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 487 of 2025 Mantosh Mandal S/o Shri Aanand Mandal Aged About 28 Years R/o Bangalipara, Chintalnar, Tahsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus National Investigation Agency (N.I.A.) Through Branch Office Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-03-2025) --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Ms Sareena Khan, Advocate For Respondent/NIA : Shri B Gopa Kumar, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 01.04.2025 Heard Ms Sareena Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri B Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the NIA. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Session Judge, NIA Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh in RC-19 of 2024, whereby the appellant’s bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been rejected. Present appellant has been arrested for the offence under Sections 4, Cra 487 of 2025 2 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; and under Section 23, 39(2) and 40 of the UP(P) Act. 2. Appellant has made the following prayer in the appeal: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 whereby the learned Special Session Judge NIA Act, Bastar Place-Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh in RC No.19 of 2024 (Annexure A-1) in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.09.2024, on being received secret information by the Police, they conducted raid in the house of the appellant, and he was intercepted by the Police. In the interrogation, he disclosed about the involvement in the Naxalite activities since 2020, and from his possession, the explosive substances Potassium Nitrate, Aluminum powder, tiffin bomb, 8 numbers of detonators, naxalite literature, laptop, mobile phone, etc., have been seized from him, and he was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that only with suspicion, appellant was arrested. He was having no connection with any anti-social activity, or naxalite activity. He is a simple villager, and arrested by the Police only on suspicion, that he is closely connected with naxalite activities. The alleged articles have not been seized from his exclusive possession but to give the offence more weight, the alleged Cra 487 of 2025 3 articles have shown to be seized from the appellant. He has been arrested on 25.09.2024, and final adjudication of this appeal would take some more time. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, and would submit that from the possession of appellant, explosive substances, including tiffin bomb and naxalite literature have been seized, which directly connects the appeal with the offence in question. It is the activities of the appellant, do affect the public at large that too create loss to the nation, and looking to the prima facie evidence of his involvement in the offence in question, he is not entitled for bail. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the appeal. 7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, as well as the nature of the allegations and the material gathered during the investigation, and further taking into account the seizure of explosive substances, a tiffin bomb, Naxalite literature, a laptop, and a mobile phone from the appellant, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of appellant- Mantosh Mandal is, rejected. Cra 487 of 2025 4 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma