[2025:RJ-JP:36364-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 300/2024 Imran Khan S/o Mohammad Sharif Khan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 230 Mohan Nagar, Industrial Area Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh. (At Present Confined In High Security Jail, Ajmer, Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus National Investigation Agency, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Deeksha Divedi with Mr. Tekchand Swami & Mr. Dilip Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Special P.P. with Mr. Manish Parmar & Mr. Himanshu Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 09/09/2025 1. The appellant has filed this appeal aggrieved by order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.I.A.), Jaipur, Rajasthan whereby the fourth bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the remand order dated 03.04.2022, the appellant was arrested by the Police on 01.04.2022, however the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on 03.04.2022. Therefore, the arrest of the appellant is illegal. Counsel further submits that the recovery made at the instance of the appellant is doubtful as the same was effected from an open place. Counsel further submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:36364-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLAD-300/2024] respondents have failed to connect the appellant with the crime. Counsel further submits that the respondents have involved many family members of the appellant in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon several judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1136/2023 decided on 21.01.2025), Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ((1994) 4 SCC 602), Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ((2005) 5 SCC 294) & Vernon Vs. State of Maharashtra And Another (AIR 2023 SC 3926). 4. Learned counsel for National Investigating Agency has opposed the present appeal. Counsel submits that as per the arrest memo (Exhibit D16), the appellant was arrested on 03.04.2022 at 07:10 AM and he was produced before the Magistrate concerned at 07:45 PM on the same day and the Magistrate concerned has issued the remand order on the same day. Counsel further submits that prior to this date, the appellant was called for making some inquiry from him. Counsel further submits that the appellant has not challenged the remand order before any competent Court of law. Counsel further submits that on the information provided by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, material of certain explosive items which used to make circuits were recovered from the house/farm house of the appellant. Counsel further submits that the National Investigating Agency has also recovered one video/Pendrive and other materials which shows that the appellant was giving training to the young boys with regard to making of the bomb. Counsel [2025:RJ-JP:36364-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLAD-300/2024] further submits that there is a bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with regard to non- grant of bail where prima facie case is made out against a person. Counsel further submits that charge has also been framed against the appellant, therefore, prima facie case is made out against the appellant. Counsel further submits that the appellant is involved in another similar case which was registered against him under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Counsel further submits that similarly the appeal filed on behalf of the co-accused - Mazhar Khan was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2023 by this Court which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 18.01.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14091/2023. He therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record before us. 6. Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 reads as under:- “(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a persual of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.” [2025:RJ-JP:36364-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLAD-300/2024] 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons; firstly, in the present case, remand order has never been challenged by the appellant before any competent Court of Law; Secondly, as per arrest memo (Exhibit D16), the appellant was arrested on 03.04.2022 in the morning and was produced the Magistrate concerned on the same day in the evening; thirdly, the charges have already been framed against the appellant in the present case, fourthly, the explosive items have been recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house/farm house; fifthly, another case of similar nature under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is registered against the appellant and lastly, the appeal filed on behalf of the co- accused has already been rejected which order has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in our considered view, the prima facie case is made out against the appellant. 8. In that view of the matter, the criminal appeal is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Sudeepak/16