1 2025:CGHC:37439-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 868 of 2025 1 - Arvind Tulavi S/o Maniram Tulavi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Karekatta, P.S. Madanwada, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahesh Meshram S/o Shri Hiraman Meshram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kandadi Police Station Kohka District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Kosarav Para P.S. Manpur, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Madanwada, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 897 of 2025 Ramkishan Yadav S/o Hari Singh Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No.-45, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Police Station - Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Madanwada, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chauki (C.G.) --- Respondent ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 For Appellants in CRA 868/2025 : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Appellant in CRA 897/2025 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 31.07.2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of common FIR, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2. CRA No. 868/2025 is an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, filed by the appellants – Arvind Tulavi and Mahesh Meshram against the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NIA) Rajnandgaon, in Bail Application No.178 of 2025, whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellants under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been dismissed. 3. CRA No. 897/2025 is an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, filed by the appellant – Ramkishan Yadav against the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NIA) Rajnandgaon, in Bail Application No.165 of 2025, whereby the regular bail application 3 filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS has been dismissed. 4. The appellants are accused in Crime No. 6 of 2024, registered at Police Station Madanwada, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, for the offences under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2) and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAPA’) and Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, and the Special Case No. 32 of 2024 is pending before the learned Special Judge (NIA) Rajnandgaon. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.05.2024, a secret information was received by the police of Police Station Madanwada that two tractors, which was kept in the house of co- accused Arvind Tulavi was purchased by the funds provided by the Naxalites. The police has seized the said two tractors from his house and upon interrogation, it was found that the co-accused Mahesh Meshram, Sahadev Tulavi and Ram Kishan Yadav gave Rs. 7,50,000/- cash to co-accused Sushil Sahu to purchase the tractor and the said accused get Rs. 6,00,000/- deposited in his bank account and paid the same to the tractor dealer as its consideration and the said tractor was given to another co- accused Ashok @ Baldev Reddy, who engaged in Naxalite activities at Kanker. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons including the present appellants. 4 6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants without adequately appreciating the absence of direct evidence linking either appellants to any Naxalite organization or activity under the UAPA. They would further submit that there is no conspiracy or meeting of mind with the other accused persons to commit the offence. The appellant are in jail since 25.06.2024 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, as only few of the witnesses have been examined in the case and some of them have already turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The appellants are having no previous criminal antecedent and looking to the allegation against the appellants, they may be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that bail application of co-accused Sushil Sahu has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 in CRA No. 79 of 2025 and the case of the present appellants are also identical to the said co-accused, the trial of the case is in progress and therefore they are not entitled for bail. 8. We have heard the rival submissions of the respective parties and considered the same. 9. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the appellants and the materials collected against them during the 5 investigation, further considering the fact that bail application of co-accused Sushil Sahu has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 in CRA No. 79 of 2025 and the case of the present appellants are also identical to the said co-accused and also that the trial is in progress, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 10. Accordingly, both the appeals are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra