1 2025:CGHC:24900-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 629 of 2025 1 Tabasum Ahmed S/o Rizwan Ansari Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Nevri, Police Station Pandu, District Palamu, Jharkhand ... Appellant versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.18 10:20:23 +0530 2 the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case (NIA) No.56/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Herman Kumar), arising out of Crime No.20/2024 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, C.G., by which the appellant's application under Section 439 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail for offences under Sections 120 of the IPC, Section 25, 27 of Arms act and Section 18, 19,20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, Section 8(1)(3)(5) of C.G. Special Security Act has been rejected. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, on 12.03.2024 the SDOP, Kunkuri, District Jashpur received secret information that at village Karma some persons are planning to engage illegal activities and upon search the accused persons namely Herman Kumar, Ranjeet Kumar Mahto and Ram Lakda were found in house. Further, case of prosecution is that upon search from the accused namely Herman, bag containing printed articles of political party was seized whereas from Ranjeet Kumar Mahto a bag full of printed articles, Mobile Phone was seized and from Ram lakda AK-47 rifle and 90 round live cartridges was seized. Further, on the above information other co-accused Gulam Shahzada was arrested and in his memorandum he has stated that the present appellant and other co-accused Tunesh Lakda who is area commander of J.J.M.P Political party had requested him and other accused persons to help in regulating the activities of party in state of C.G. thus the present offence has been registered under Sections 120 of the IPC, Section 25, 27 of Arms Act and Section 18, 19, 20 of unlawful Activities 3 (Prevention) Act 1967, Section 8 (1)(3)(5) of C.G. Special Security Act. 4. The appellant preferred an application under Section 439 of the CRPC before the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 07.08.2024, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 5. Mr. Anurag Singh learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant has been arrested just to harass him for unnecessary trial and criminal prosecution. He further submits that the appellant has been arrested on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Gulam Shahzada. He further submits that no recovery has been made from the present appellant, hence the appellant be released on regular bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the NIA/respondent vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the evidence which have been collected during the course of investigation against the appellant goes to show his active participation and involvement in the naxal operations. He further submits that the other co-accused is a member of banned organization and from him AK-47 and 90 live cartridges were recovered which was kept with the motive to disturb the parliamentary elections. It has been contended that the appellant has been arrested on 13.03.2024 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. Hence, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be rejected. 4 7. 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. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, and further considering period of detention since 13.03.2024 and particularly the fact that charge-sheet has been filed. Moreover, it is also apparent that the State and the Centre are combating and are making all their efforts along with their machineries to make the State of Chhattisgarh free from naxalite activities as this State is gripped with naxalite activities causing endanger to the internal security of the State as well as common people, which also effect the national interest, hence, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the instant criminal is rejected. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal is rejected. 9. However, 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 co-operate with the trial. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar