1 2025:CGHC:28837-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1055 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 ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Madanwada, District - Mohla Manpur Ambagarh - Chowki (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr.Sandeep 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: 2025.06.30 18:52:52 +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.3/2024 registered at Police Station Madanwada, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki. 3. Facts of the case are that the appellants were arrested on 10th August 2024 along with one other co-accused and the main accused in the case was arrested earlier on 2.4.2024 in the aforementioned crime. Initially, they 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). However, on 18th March 2025, the appellants were partially discharged from most of the charges except appellant No. 1 under Section 386 IPC, Sections 39 & 40 UAPA and appellants No. 2 & 3 under Section 386 IPC & Section 40 of the UAPA. 4. The appellants had previously filed a bail application (Bail Application No. 424/2024) before learned Special Judge, NIA Act, Rajnandgaon, which was rejected vide order dated 25th October 2024. An appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (CRA No. 2261/2024) was filed before this Court, which was dismissed on 14th January 2025. Subsequently, 3 Bail Application No. 244/2025 before learned Special Judge, NIA Act, Rajnandgaon, was rejected vide order dated 7th May 2025. The present appeal is filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, highlighting new facts, changed circumstances, and the appellants' minimal role in the alleged offence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that first bail application of the appellants has been dismissed by this Court on merits on 17.06.2025 and this is the second bail application on the ground that in some of the offences which were levelled against the appellants they were discharged by the trial Court. He further submits that in the present case, inquiry has been made by the Forest Department in the year 2023, which has not been submitted by the police officer in the present case and the person who has made an allegation against the present appellants, the Forest Department has lodged FIR against him on 09.06.2025. Moreover, the Forest Department has lodged FIR against 9 forest offciers. He also submits that the appellants are in jail since more than 11 months and there are total 57 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 45 are police witnesses and the present case is under the NIA Act and the prosecution has not taken approval from the Central Government. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellants may be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by 4 learned counsel for the appellants and submits that second bail application of co-accused Rajendra Kumar Kadti has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2025 in CRA No.1119 of 2025 and the appellants preferred an appeal whereby the appellants claimed that they were discharged from certain offences and the offences for which the charges were framed, the order was challenged in CRA No.855/2025 and the same was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2025. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to entertain this second bail application. Accordingly, criminal appeal is dismissed. However, the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur is directed to ensure the production of all the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court on the date fixed by the trial Court. 8. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur forthwith. The State Counsel is also directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu