1 CRA No. 1784 of 2025 2025:CGHC:49535-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1784 of 2025 Sooraj Nishad @ Karan S/o Late Mishrilal Nishad Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur, P O -Jasra, P S Lalapur, Prayagraj (U.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus Union Of India Through N I A, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate For Respondent/NIA : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Ismail Shaikh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/10/2025 1. This appeal under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2025 passed in Special N.I.A. Case No. 07/2024 by the Special Judge N.I.A/Scheduled Offences Bastar, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.07 14:46:38 +0530 2 CRA No. 1784 of 2025 at Jagdalpur (C.G.), thereby rejecting the bail application preferred by the appellant. 2. The appellant has been arrested on 11.10.2024 in connection with crime No. RC-01/2023/NIA/RPR by the NIA Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the commission of offence under Sections 34 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act and 13(1), 38(2), 39(2) of UA(P) Act and his application for bail filed under section 483 of the B.N.S.S. has been rejected by the Special Judge vide order dated 02.06.2025. 3. (a) Facts of the case is that the present appellant has facilitated a meeting among the co-accused person for the purpose of providing a revolver, who are allegedly the members of proscribed terrorist Organization CPI (Maoist) and further facilitated them in their terrorist activities. (d) After arrest, the appellant filed an application under Section 483 BNSS for grant of bail before the Special Court (NIA), Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G), which was rejected by the impugned order dated 02.06.2025. Thus, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any act attracting offences punishable under Section 34 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act; and Sections 13(1), 38(2), 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The 3 CRA No. 1784 of 2025 appellant has been arrayed as an accused without any cogent evidence, solely on the basis of suspicion he has been implicated. He further submits that the allegation against the appellant is that he has facilitated in the transfer of revolver which was purchased by one Prince Sharma who is member of proscribed terrorist Organization CPI (Maoist). He further submits that supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed against the appellant and his involvement came into light in memorandum statement of Sudhir Tripathi and Prince Sharma and there is no other evidence to show his involvement in the naxalite or CPI (Maoist) activities. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 14.10.2024 i.e. about a year. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NIA, opposes the submission made and submits that 14 witnesses have been examined out of 27 witnesses. He also submits that involvement of the appellant in the naxalite or CPI (Maoist) activities cannot be ruled out as there are ample evidences against the appellant which come to fore after investigation under the provisions of the UAPA, as the case was transferred from state police. Learned counsel would submit that the appellant was the facilitator of the meeting and he was present in the meeting and co-accused Sudhir Tripathi arranged the revolver for Rs. 32,000/- and said amount was paid through PhonePe from Prince Sharma. The said seized revolver was purchased for the purpose of further handing 4 CRA No. 1784 of 2025 over of the same to the hard-core CPI (Maoist) Hungo Mudkami. He also submits that the present appellant had an active role in the procurement of weapons and was very much in the meeting in which all this conspiracy took place. He further submits that bail application of co-accused has been rejected by this court. Thus, this Criminal Appeal claiming for bail, is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the appeal memo. 7. Considering the entire facts situation of the case; particularly considering the seriousness of the allegations; further considering the fact that the appellant was the facilitator of the meeting and he was present in the meeting and co-accused Sudhir Tripathi arranged the revolver for Rs. 32,000/- and said amount was paid through PhonePe from Prince Sharma; and the said seized revolver was purchased for the purpose of further handing over of the same to the hard-core CPI (Maoist) Hungo Mudkami; and also the fact that the trial is in progress and out of 27 prosecution witnesses, 14 have already been examined and they have supported the prosecution case, and the bail application of co- accused have already been rejected. It is also apparent that the 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 5 CRA No. 1784 of 2025 with naxalite activities causing endanger to the internal security of the State as well as common people, which also effect the national interest. 8. Further considering the fact, that the trial is in progress and if the appellant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he would abscond and trial would be hampered, hence, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/Gowri