1 2026:CGHC:14204-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 378 of 2026 Bhawan Lal Jain @ Bhuwan Jain S/o Dhan Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o H.N. 18, Bade Tewada, Aamabeda, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Central Government Through Officer In Charge Police Station NIA, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr.Prahlad Panda, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.B.Gopakumar, Special Public Prosecutor along with Mr.Ayush Bhatt and Ms Navya Gopal, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 25/03/2026 1. Heard Mr.Prahlad Panda, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.B.Gopakumar, Special Public Prosecutor along with BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.03.27 10:08:49 +0530 2 Mr.Ayush Bhatt and Ms Navya Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur in NIA Case No.3/2025 by which the appellant's application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been rejected by learned Special Judge. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 25.02.2025 at around 5:30 PM in village Useli (Aamabeda), 10–15 unknown cadres, who are members of CPI (Maoist), committed the murder of Motiram Aanchala. The allegation is that the present appellant assisted them and was involved in their criminal conspiracy. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged that he was associated with co-accused Sonu, who committed the murder of Motiram Aanchala, an army personnel, and the main accused, Sonu, is still absconding. He further submits that out of 63 prosecution witnesses, only 4 have been examined so far, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the appellant is entitled to be released on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned 3 counsel for the appellant and submits that the present case pertains to the cold-blooded murder of an army personnel who was on leave at the time of the incident, allegedly committed by the appellant and other co-accused persons. He further submits that the statements of protected witnesses have been recorded, in which they have categorically stated the involvement of the present appellant in the crime. He adds that the NIA intends to examine the relevant witnesses, including protected witnesses, and that granting bail to the appellant would be detrimental. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, we do not find any sufficient ground to allow this appeal or grant bail to the appellant. 7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. However, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu