1 2025:CGHC:2199-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1719 of 2024 1 - Abdul Mehtab @ Mattu Khan S/o Anwar Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 22 Village Nawab Mohalla, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For appellant : Mr. Lakhan Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 14 .01.2025 1. The present is an appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 filed by the appellant who is an accused in the case, claiming regular bail and has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed by learned 2 Special Judge (NIA) Bilaspur in Special Case (NIA) No. 67/2024 whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2024 at about 7 am, the dead body of the deceased Sadhram Yadav was found on the access way of the field near Nursery at village Lalpurkala. The cut injury on his neck was seen and then the brother of the deceased Siddhram Yadav lodged the report to the Police. During the investigation, the appellant along with the other co-accused persons have been arrested the present appellant is arrested on 24.01.2024. During the investigation it was found that certain objectionable chats have been exchanged by the accused persons and the video relating to the terrorist activities has also been exchanged which was in Kashmiri language and considering the evidence collected during the investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge (NIA) Bilaspur in which the trial of the case is pending. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no evidence against the present appellant in the charge-sheet except of his memorandum statement, no seizure of any incriminating article have been made from the present appellant. The objectionable photographs and chat messages are extracted from the damaged mobile phone and the present appellant is nowhere connected from the said piece of evidence. No blood was found on the rosary of the deceased nor the alleged cutter, alleged objectionable chats was neither extracted from the mobile phone of the appellant nor he is having any connection with the same. The appellant is in jail since 3 24.01.2024 and trial of the case will take its own time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the accused persons have conspired together and committed murder of the deceased Sadhram Yadav from the mobile phones of the accused persons certain objectionable video have been found which relates to the terrorist activities and looking to the seriousness of the offence, the appellant is not entitled for bail. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the appeal and charge-sheet. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation, material collected during the investigation against the present appellant, further considering that no any incriminating articles have been seized from the present appellant and also that he is in jail since 24.01.2024 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, we are inclined to allow the appeal and to release the appellant on bail. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (NIA) Bilaspur in Special Case (NIA) No. 67/2024 is set aside. 8. It is directed that the appellant Abdul Mehtab @ Mattu Khan shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/ with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Judge, for his appearance as and when directed. 4 9. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the matter and this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the matter and the Special Judge (NIA Act) will decide the matter strictly as per material available on record without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika