1 2026:CGHC:23912-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1261 of 2026 Anish Khan @ Annu Khan S/o Gaffar Bhai Aged About 55 Years R/o Samta Nagar Colony, Govindpur, Kanker, Police Station Kanker, District - Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Union of India Through N I A Raipur, Branch Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/UOI : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Ayush Bhatt, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Union of India, assisted by Mr. Ayush Bhatt, learned counsel. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.06.16 17:10:59 +0530 2 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, “the NIA Act”), is directed against the order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA/Scheduled Offence, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Special NIA Case No.16 of 2024, arising out of Crime No.33 of 2024 registered at Police Station Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.), for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121 and 121-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, whereby the application preferred by the appellant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) came to be dismissed. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Union of India raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present appeal. It is submitted that an appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act is maintainable only against an order granting or refusing bail. Inviting attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 25.04.2026, learned counsel submits that the application under Section 483 of the BNSS was never adjudicated on merits by the learned Special Judge. Rather, the order itself records that when the matter was taken up for filing of reply, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused stated before the Court that the application was not being pressed. Acting upon the said statement, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application as not pressed. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order cannot be construed as an order 3 refusing bail so as to attract the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the aforesaid factual position nor point out any provision of law under which the present appeal would be maintainable against an order dismissing a bail application as not pressed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability and perused the record. 6. A plain reading of the impugned order dated 25.04.2026 leaves no manner of doubt that the learned Special Judge did not undertake any adjudication on the appellant's prayer for bail. The order records that the application under Section 483 of the BNSS was not pressed by the appellant and was accordingly dismissed as not pressed. No finding whatsoever has been recorded either granting or refusing bail. Thus, the impugned order is merely consequential to the appellant's own decision not to pursue the application. 7. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act can be invoked only against an order granting or refusing bail. The expression “granting or refusing bail” necessarily contemplates a judicial determination on the merits of the bail prayer. An order dismissing a bail application as withdrawn or not pressed does not amount to an order refusing bail and, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of Section 21(4) of the NIA Act. 4 8. In the present case, the learned Special Judge neither granted bail nor refused bail. The appellant himself chose not to pursue the application before the learned Special Judge. Having invited an order dismissing the application as not pressed, the appellant cannot now be permitted to challenge the consequence flowing from his own statement. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 25.04.2026 is not an order appealable under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act. Consequently, the present appeal is not maintainable. 10. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent/Union of India is upheld and the criminal appeal is dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan