1 2025:CGHC:24119-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1119 of 2025 Rajendra Kumar Kadti S/o Bugur Kadti Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Degmeta, Police Station - Mirtur, District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Madanwada, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarhchowki (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr.Yuvraj Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.06.2025 1. Heard Mr.Yuvraj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.16 17:49:24 +0530 2 2. The appellant has filed this bail application under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIA Act’) seeking bail in connection with Crime No.03/2024 registered at Police Station Madanwada, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki on the ground that on 18.03.2025 the appellant was partly discharged from the charges under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 8(3) & 8(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1) (2) & 39(1)(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Section 384 of the IPC. 3. First bail application of the appellant has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh before appropriate forum vide order dated 01.05.2025 in CRA No.775/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution alleges extortion by the appellant from tendupatta contractor (PW- 3), yet the contractor’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, memorandum and bank records only implicate Sonaram, Vijay and Ramlal with no mention of the appellant. The appellant’s bank statement shows no transactions with tendupatta contractor (PW- 3). He further submits that discharge of the appellant from all charges except Section 386 of the IPC and Section 40 UAPA on 18.03.2025 constitutes a material change in circumstances. He also submits that co-accused Vivek Singh was granted bail by this Court in CRA No.1898/2024. He contended that the appellant is in 3 custody since 10th August, 2024 and there is no progress in the trial. As such, criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and bail may be granted to the appellant. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kailash Gaur v. State of Assam, (2012) 2 SCC 34, State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, (1989) Supp (2) SCC 605 and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1979) 1 SCC 81. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned bail rejection order. 7. Learned Special Judge, NIA Act, Rajnanadgaon while rejecting the bail application of the appellant has observed that prima facie, the allegations appear to be serious, involving the collection of funds amounting to Rs.45,02,400/- through levy for Maoist activities from PW3 with the intention of furthering the activities of Maoist organizations, which are involved in anti-state activities. The offence is extremely serious because such support promotes unlawful and prohibited activities. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant and finding recorded by learned Special Judge, NIA Act, Rajnandgaon while rejecting the bail application of 4 the appellant, we do not find any good ground or change in circumstances to entertain this second bail application. 9. Accordingly, criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu