1 2025:CGHC:535-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1456 of 2024 1 - Raju Singh S/o Bhuneshwar Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Raturoad Hehal Police Station Sukhdevpur, District Ranchi Jharkhand At Present Address Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge ORDER ON BOARD Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 06/01/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2019 against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in Special Case (N.I.A.) No. 17/2024 whereby, learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act), Raigarh, District – Raigarh, C.G. had dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail. 2. Case of the prosecution is that, on 26.11.2022 during checking, police found one minor girl outside the Raigarh Railway Station and upon verifying and questioning the girl/victim, she stated that she is SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 going to Delhi along with the applicant. Based on such averment made by the victim, aforementioned crime was registered and appellant was arrested on 26.11.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the crime and he has not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., no specific allegation has been made against the appellant. He also submits that during the course of investigation, police officials who have found the victim outside the Railway Station have been examined and one of the police officials have stated that during the interrogation, victim has stated that she is going to Delhi along with her uncle. He also submits that the appellant is in jail since, 26.11.2022, and thereby, he has suffered more than 02 years of the pre-trial detention, trial may take sometime. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the nature of offence as alleged against the appellant is of serious nature and therefore, he is not entitled for bail. He also contended that none of the police officials have stated that upon interrogation, the victim has stated that she is going to Delhi along with the present appellant. When question is posed to the learned counsel for the State that whether there is any specific allegation against the appellant in the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., after going through the statements, he fairly submits that no specific allegation is leveled by the victim that she 3 is going to Delhi along with the appellant. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submission of counsel for the respective parties, period of pre-trial detention and submission of the counsel for the State that there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, we are inclined to allow this criminal appeal for grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and it is directed that appellant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to satisfaction of Trial Court concerned on the conditions that: (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the courton the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such 4 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Dey