1 2025:CGHC:25547-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1142 of 2025 Angad Singh Salame S/o Narayan Singh Salame Aged About 42 Years R/o Bazaar Para Manpur, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - National Investigation Agency (NIA) Through Its Superintendent of Police, NIA Branch Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Home Secretary, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent of Police Y.P. Singh, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 4 - Additional S.P. Mayank Gurjar District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sdop Mayank Tiwari District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dy. SP Tejendra Diwan District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Check Pal Sehrawat Dy. Superintendent of Police, NIA Branch Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Bholanath Dey INSP NIA Branch Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Uttam Kumar Sahu ASI NIA Branch Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Tandan and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate For NIA : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.20 10:22:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Tandan and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Though the Registry has made an objection about the maintainability of the criminal appeal, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the NIA has submitted that the instant appeal is maintainable, as such, we proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Ex C.A. No.4875/2025, Filing No.1401/2025 (NIA Vs. Accused), arising out of Crime No.28/2023 registered at Police Station NIA, BO Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 38(1)(2) and 39(1)(2) of the Unlawful Activity Prevention Act, 1967, by which the appellant's application has been rejected seeking return of illegally seized electronic devices and provision of search operation video footage, finding no merit. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a Primary School Teacher and he has aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the authorities including illegal searches, coercive interrogations, including repeated interrogations without notice following the murder of Birjhu Ram Taram, aimed at falsely implicating him in Naxal-related cases, and threats, violate his fundamental rights under Article 21 and have caused reputational damage. emotional distress, and disruption to the appellant and his family. He further submits that the appellant is a dedicated teacher serving at Munjal Primary School, Manpur, for over 17 years, has been subjected to relentless harassment since the murder of Birjhu Ram Taram by naxalites with AK-56 weapon (Case No. 0028/2023, police station Aundhi, RC-16/2024/NIA/RPR). Following the incident, the local police and NIA conducted prolonged interrogations of several villagers, including the appellant, without prior notice. On multiple occasions, the appellant was summoned to the Mohla SP Office, NIA Office in Raipur, and Manpur Police Station for questioning, totaling more than ten instances, all without notice, causing significant distress and disruption to his professional and personal life. The authorities have demanded that he facilitate the surrender of a Naxalite named Rupesh Mandavi, a resident of the same area, within a week, threatening to implicate him in Naxal-related cases if he failed to comply. 5. It has been contended that a raid was conducted on 24.02.2025, at about 4:30 AM and the NIA, accompanied by ITBP forces and anti- landmine vehicles, conducted a six-hour raid at the appellant residence 4 under Case No.RC-16/2024/NIA/RPR. Although the search warrant named only the appellant, devices belonging to his wife was seized, with passwords forcibly obtained or accessed without passwords, raising concerns of potential tampering and some items were seized. It has been lastly contended that the appellant preferred an application before the Special Judge (NIA), Raipur, District Raipur for return of the articles, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the NIA as well as State vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant 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 search was conducted and some incriminating articles; such as electronic devices and some video footage were seized. It has been contended that the the investigation is going on and at this stage, the authorities are not in a position to return the said articles to the appellant, hence, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be rejected. 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, seizure of incriminating documents 5 and articles, it is apparent that this 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, this Court is not inclined to direct the authorities to return of electronic device as well as video footage to the appellant as the investigation is still going on and the articles seized is the case property. Accordingly, the instant criminal is rejected. 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 Anu