1 2026:CGHC:20624-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 832 of 2026 Mukesh Singh Bodana S/o Umrao Singh Bodana Aged About 32 Years R/o Kamla Neharunagar Marg, Behind The Premnagar Gas Godam, P.S- Chimanganj Distt- Ujjain (M.P.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Manipur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.) (Wrongly Mention In The Order As Distt- Koriya) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.05.05 10:38:18 +0530 2 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge, (NIA Act), Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case (NIA) No.01/2026, arising out of Crime No.323/2025 registered at Police Station Manipur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), for the offence punishable under Sections 143(2), 87, 3(5), 140(3), 142, 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), by which the appellant's application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been rejected, finding no merit. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.11.2025, the sister of the victim lodged a written report at Police Station Manipur alleging that the victim was engaged in working at wedding functions to sustain herself and her family. It is stated that the victim had earlier accompanied the accused, namely Alka Uraon, to a wedding function at Ambikapur. Owing to their cordial relationship, the accused Alka Uraon, on 19.11.2025, took the victim from Ambikapur to Pathalgaon on the pretext of arranging work for her in another wedding function. However, instead of providing such employment, the accused, in alleged collusion with co-accused Ashok, deceitfully trafficked the victim and sold her for marriage at Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) for a consideration of ₹2,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the victim was forcibly married in an illegal manner with the intention of concealing the offence and evading legal consequences. 3 4. The complainant has further stated that upon suspecting foul play, she attempted to contact accused Alka Uraon, but the latter avoided communication and stopped answering her calls. Subsequently, on 26.11.2025, co-accused Ashok allegedly informed the complainant over a phone call that the victim had been sold to him by Alka Uraon for ₹2,00,000/- and further threatened that he would not release the victim, cautioning that failure to comply would lead to grave consequences for her. 5. Upon receiving this information, the complainant promptly lodged the report on 29.11.2025, on the basis of which Crime No. 323/2025 was registered at Police Station Manipur against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, statements of the complainant were recorded wherein the name of the present applicant, Mukesh Singh Bodana, surfaced. Consequently, the present applicant was also implicated as an accused in the case. 6. The applicant was arrested on 03.12.2025 and, after completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court. Thereafter, the present applicant preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking regular bail before the learned trial Court, which came to be rejected vide order dated 16.03.2026. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application for grant of regular bail filed by the present appellant came to be dismissed, the appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal before this Court. 4 8. Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned trial Court is wholly illegal, perverse and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence collected during the course of investigation and has mechanically rejected the bail application without assigning cogent and sufficient reasons. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the present appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the name of the appellant does not find mention in the F.I.R. and he has been roped in subsequently during the course of investigation without any substantive material connecting him to the alleged offence. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Pandey that there is no specific or active role attributed to the present appellant in the commission of the alleged crime. As per the prosecution story itself, the primary allegations pertain to co-accused Alka Uraon and Ashok, who allegedly took the victim on the pretext of providing employment and thereafter trafficked her. The allegation regarding solemnization of marriage with the victim is specifically attributed to co-accused Bhanwar Singh, and not to the present appellant. He submits that the appellant is stated to be the brother of co-accused Bhanwar Singh, who allegedly married the victim, and it is sought to be alleged that the victim was subjected to sexual abuse. However, except for such bald allegations, there is no material to demonstrate any direct involvement or participation of the present appellant in the alleged acts. The implication of the appellant is primarily 5 based on the memorandum statement of co-accused persons, which, in law, has limited evidentiary value and cannot be made the sole basis for denying bail. 10. It is further contended by Mr. Pandey that apart from the memorandum of co-accused, there is no independent or corroborative evidence available on record to connect the present appellant with the alleged offence. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against the present appellant, and thus his implication is wholly unjustified. He also submits that the appellant is aged about 32 years and has been in judicial custody since 03.12.2025. The investigation in the matter has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the appellant is required. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and has a clean past record. It is further argued that the appellant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the memo of parties and owns both movable and immovable properties. Therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from justice. It is also submitted that the appellant undertakes to cooperate with the trial and shall not in any manner influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence. As such, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant be released on bail. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, opposes the submissions 6 advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the present appellant is one of the accused in connection with Crime No.323/2025 registered at Police Station Manipur for serious offences punishable under various provisions of the BNS. The allegations against the appellant pertain to trafficking of a woman under the false pretext of providing employment and subsequently selling her for marriage, which is a grave and heinous offence affecting the dignity and liberty of a woman. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded, wherein she has specifically named the present appellant and other co-accused persons. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that she was lured by accused Alka Uraon on the pretext of providing work and thereafter taken to Ujjain, where she was introduced to co-accused persons including the present appellant. It is alleged that the accused persons, including the appellant, informed her that she had been purchased for marriage and thereafter she was forcibly married to co-accused Bhanwar Singh. It is further alleged that after such forced marriage, she was subjected to physical relations against her will. 12. Mr. Shukla submits that the involvement of the present appellant is clearly reflected from the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other material collected during investigation. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no material against the appellant or that he has been falsely implicated. The contention of the appellant that his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. is not of much significance, as it is well settled that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and the role of the accused 7 persons can emerge during investigation. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed after collecting sufficient evidence against the appellant and other co-accused persons, and the case is now pending for trial before the competent Court. The evidence collected during investigation prima facie establishes that the appellant was actively involved in trafficking the victim by selling her for the purpose of marriage after inducing her on false assurances of employment. He also submits that as per the ICJS report, there are criminal antecedents against the present appellant, which further disentitles him from being enlarged on bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which the crime has been committed, and the role attributed to the present appellant, no case for grant of bail is made out. 13. It is further argued by Mr. Shukla that at the stage of consideration of bail, detailed appreciation of evidence is not required and only a prima facie view is to be taken. In the present case, sufficient prima facie material exists against the appellant, and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the bail application. As such, it is prayed that this Court be dismissed the present appeal being devoid of merits and uphold the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the present appeal filed under the NIA Act. 8 15. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary as well as the material available on record, this Court finds that the present case pertains to serious allegations of trafficking of a woman under the pretext of providing employment and thereafter selling her for the purpose of marriage. The allegations, prima facie, disclose that the prosecutrix was deceitfully taken from one place to another and was subsequently forced into marriage after monetary consideration, which reflects a well-organized and grave offence affecting not only the individual victim but also the societal fabric. 16. From the material collected during investigation, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, it emerges that the present appellant has been specifically named and his role is reflected as one of the persons involved in the transaction whereby the victim was allegedly “purchased” and compelled to marry co-accused Bhanwar Singh. The prosecutrix has also stated that the accused persons, including the present appellant, threatened her and informed her about the monetary transaction. At this stage, such statement cannot be brushed aside or disbelieved without trial. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that his name does not find place in the F.I.R. does not carry much weight in the facts of the present case, as it is well settled that the F.I.R. is not expected to be an exhaustive document and the role of an accused may come to light during the course of investigation. In the present matter, the involvement of the appellant has surfaced during investigation, and the 9 same is supported by the statement of the prosecutrix and other material collected by the prosecution. 18. So far as the argument that the appellant has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused is concerned, this Court finds that apart from such memorandum, there is direct material in the form of statement of the prosecutrix indicating the involvement of the present appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material against him. It is also to be noted that the offences alleged against the appellant are of serious nature involving trafficking, exploitation and forced marriage of a woman, which carry severe punishment. The gravity of the offence, the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed, and the impact on the victim are relevant considerations while deciding an application for bail. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings on merits, but only to see whether a prima facie case exists, which, in the present case, clearly does. 19. Though it is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 03.12.2025 and the charge-sheet has been filed, considering the nature of allegations and the role attributed to the appellant, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail at this stage. The possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence also cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances 10 while rejecting the appellant’s application for bail. No infirmity, perversity, or illegality is found in the impugned order warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 21. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall remain in judicial custody. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude it in accordance with law. 22. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu