1 2025:CGHC:17140-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1623 of 2024 Komal Ahirwar S/o Aoumeda Ahirwar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Udaipur, P.S.- Bijawar, District- Chatarpur, M.P. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Tapkara, District- Jashpur, C.G. (District Name Wrongly Mention In Impugend Order) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15/04/2025 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. Heard Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and perused the record. 2 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (in short 'N.I.A. Act'). 2. Vide order dated 24.07.2024 appellants’ application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, (NIA), Bilaspur (C.G.) for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.39/2024 registered at Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366 (a), 368, 120(B) and 370/34 of IPC. 3. As per prosecution story, 0n 18.04.2024, the complainant namely Sanpet Yadav lodged FIR before the police station Takara alleging that the appellant had abducted her two grand daughter and one grandson from his home. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 39/2024 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366 (a), 368, 120(B) and 370/34 of IPC. The appellant is in Jail since 22.04.2024. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the appellant has been roped in the present case due to enmity and that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He submits that he has one previous criminal antecedent against him and vide judgment dated 11.07.2023, he has been acquitted. He submits that the children were in custody of co-accused person namely Nilu @ Nirmala Nayak and Bimla Yadav who are friends and they have abducted the children. It is further stated that he is languishing in jail for the last one year and out of 20 witnesses only 4 witnesses have been examined, therefore the 3 appellant may be released on bail. He submits that co-accused Bimla took the children to Nilu @ Nirmala Pathak for engaging them in work. Lastly, he submits that the charge sheet has been filed and only four witnesses have been examined therefore, at this stage, the appellant may be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose this criminal appeal and submit that there is clear evidence regarding the involvement of the present appellant in the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail and consequently, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. It is stated by the counsel for the appellant that the wife of the appellant is also languishing in jail and on a pointed query being made from the counsel for the appellant as to whether any bail application has been filed on behalf of the wife of the appellant namely, Bimla, who is the co-accused, he has stated that her case is not good hence, the bail application has not been filed on her behalf. 8. Considering the overall aspects of the matter and the allegations levelled against him as well as the seriousness of the offence and the trial is in progress and 04 prosecution witnesses have been examined, we are not inclined to allow the instant criminal appeal and grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, it is dismissed at this stage. 9. However, considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 22.04.2024, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial 4 and conclude the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. The learned counsel for the parties are directed to file a certified copy of this order before the trial Court for necessary information and its compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.19 14:51:48 +0530