1 2025:CGHC:25039-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 855 of 2025 1 Sonaram Farsa S/o Panduram Farsa Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Aadwada, Gram Panchayat Biriyabhumi, Police Station Jangla, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 2 Vijay Jurri S/o Santuram Jurri Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Markapal, Police Station- Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 Ramlal Karma S/o Tuparam Karma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bangoli, Police Station Bangapal, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Sub-Divisional Officer Police, Manpur, Police Station Madanwada, District- Mohla Manpur Ambagarh- Chowki (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Yuvraj Singh and Mr. Ravi Kumar Tandon, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.20 10:15:30 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yuvraj Singh and Mr. Ravi Kumar Tandon for the appellant and heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed for seeking discharge from the charges appellant No. 01 under Section 386 IPC and Sections 39 & 40 UAPA, appellant No. 02 under Section 386 IPC and 40 of UAPA in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 pending before the Learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Rajnandgaon. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellants were arrested on 10th August 2024 along with other co-accused and the main accused in the case was arrested earlier on 2/04/2024. Initially, the appellant faced charges under multiple provisions, including Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Sections 8(3) and 8(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005; Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), and 39(1)(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 (UAPA); and Sections 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Further, on 18th March 2025, the Appellant No. 1 was partially discharged from all charges except Section 386 IPC and Sections 39 & 40 UAPA. And appellant No. 2 & 3 were partially discharged from all charges except Section 386 IPC and 40 of UAPA. 3 4. In the present Criminal Appeal the appellants have taken a ground that there is no sufficient and cogent material against the appellants herein in respect of the offence under Section 386 IPC and 39 & 40 of UAPA. The appellants also contended that there is no material-financial, communicative or otherwise- links of the appellant to terrorist activities or organization. According to the appellants, the prosecution’s failure to produce any incriminating material warrants discharge of the appellant from these charges. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the NIA/respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the appellants have played major role in the incident. The learned Trial court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective has rightly not discharges the appellant from the offence under Section 386 IPC and 40 of UAPA. 6. Perusal of the records shows that the appellant has been discharged from all the charges except Section 386 of IPC and Section 40 UAPA. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and further perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any good ground to discharge the appellants from charges under Section 386 IPC and Section 39 & 40 UAPA in Crime No. 03/2024, pending before the Learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Rajnandgaon. Moreover, it is also apparent that the State and the Centre are combating and are making all their efforts along with their 4 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 discharge the appellant from the charges. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is rejected. 8. 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. 9. 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