1 2025:CGHC:9318-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 165 of 2025 Arjun @ Payku Kunjam S/o Aryatu Kunjam Aged About 22 Years R/o Lendr, Palenar, P.S. Gangalur, District- Bijapur, C.G. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Police Station- Payalikhand (Judag), District- Gariyaband, C.G. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.02.24 16:55:30 +0530 2 the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case (NIA) No.06/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Arjun alias Payku Kunjam), arising out of Crime No.08/2019 regisgtered at Police Station Payalikhand (Judag), District Gariyaband (C.G.), by which the appellant's application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail for offences under Sections 148, 148, 149, 307 of IPC, Sections 3, 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security ACt, 2005 has been rejected finding no merit. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.09.2019, the District Police Force and CRPF 211 Battalion had jointly made search and patrolling. The accused along with his companions fired indiscriminately after detonating an IED on the main road between village Taurenga- Kodamali, which caused fatal injuries to the Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Assistant Commandant and other Constables. The crime being serious in nature, therefore, offences under Sections 148, 148, 149, 307 of IPC, Sections 3, 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security ACt, 2005 has been registered against the present appellant. 4. The appellant preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS before the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, which 3 was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.10.2024, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 5. Mr. Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant has been arrested just to harass him for unnecessary trial and criminal prosecution. He further submits that the incident took place on 24.04.2019, where there was cross firing between the naxalites and the police personnel, on which the case was registered at Police Station Payalikhand (Judag), District Gariyaband under Sections 148, 148, 149, 307 of IPC, Sections 3, 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security ACt, 2005 and thereafter, the case was transferred to NIA, wherein case was registered as Special Case (NIA) No.06/2022. It has been contended that the appellant was arrested on 24.04.2019 and since then, he is in jail, though the charge-sheet has been filed, but the trial is likely to take some time as there are as many as 15 witnesses, and out of which, 7 witnesses have been examined, hence the appellant be released on regular bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the NIA/respondent vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail 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 prior to arrest of the appellant/ 4 accused in the instant case, search was conducted and some incriminating articles; such as detonators and other articles were seized. It has been contended that the appellant has been arrested on 24.04.2019 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. 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 and articles and their conduct and further considering period of detention since 24.04.2019 and particularly the fact that charge-sheet has been filed as also the fact that learned counsel for the appellant has not filed the order-sheet of the trial Court showing status of the trial. Moreover, it is also 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, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the instant criminal is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously 5 preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this judgment in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment and the appellant is directed to co-operate with the trial. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu