1 CGHC010197262026 2026:CGHC:31107-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1270 of 2026 Rajau Korram S/o- Late Lakum Korram, Aged About 42 Years R/o- Village- Pittekal, Police Station- Kurushnaar, Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kurushnar (Wrongly Mentioned Sonpur), District- Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Respondent _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 22.07.2026 1. This appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (NIA Act), District – Narayanpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2025, whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. has been rejected. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.04.2025 during patrolling, the search team of Police Station - Kurushnar, received an information that, the appellant is in possession of certain explosive substances and upon search of the house of the appellant, 1 muzzle loading gun, 3 pieces lead, 2 new tiffin, 1 pressure cooker, some fire crackers, 2 new bags, Torch, 1 injection filled with gunpowder, 1 old battery, 20 meter wire, 1 knife, mobile charger etc were recovered. It is further case of the prosecution that, upon asking, the appellant failed to show any valid document to keep these articles in his possession and hence, he has been arrested and Crime No. 03/2025 has been registered against him under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, Section 4, 5 Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Section 13(1), 38(2), 39(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (as per charge framed). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent of the charges levelled against him. It is contended that the alleged recovery from the house of the appellant has been exaggerated and the prosecution has failed to establish any material connecting the seized articles with any unlawful or terrorist activity. Mere possession of the articles allegedly recovered, in the absence of cogent evidence regarding their intended use or the requisite mens rea, does not prima facie attract the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Explosive 3 Substances Act, 1908, or the Arms Act, 1959. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has been in judicial custody since 16.04.2025, the investigation has already been completed, and the charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that, out of the total 25 prosecution witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined, which clearly indicates that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and is not likely to conclude in the near future. Continued incarceration of the appellant for an indefinite period would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. There is nothing on record to suggest that, if enlarged on bail, the appellant would abscond, tamper with the prosecution evidence, influence the witnesses, or commit any similar offence. The appellant undertakes to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court and to cooperate with the trial proceedings. It is, therefore, prayed that considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the progress of the trial, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the appellant may be enlarged on bail pending disposal of the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present case involves serious and grave offences under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, Sections 4 and 5 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 13(1), 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It is submitted that during the course of patrolling, on the basis of specific information received by the police team, a search was conducted at the house of the appellant, from where several incriminating articles were recovered, including a muzzle loading gun, lead pieces, tiffins, pressure cooker, fire crackers, bags, wire, battery, knife and other materials suspected to be connected with preparation of explosive substances. The appellant failed to produce any valid document or lawful explanation regarding possession of the said articles. Learned State counsel further submits that the offences alleged against the appellant have serious implications on public safety and national security, and therefore, the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are attracted. In view of the statutory restrictions contained under the said Act, the appellant is not entitled to bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie not true. At this stage, the evidence collected during investigation, including the seizure of explosive-related materials and other incriminating articles from the possession of the appellant, cannot be lightly brushed aside. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5 6. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. The prosecution has alleged recovery of arms, explosive-related materials and other articles from the possession of the appellant, which requires detailed examination during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record a finding regarding the correctness of the prosecution case. The allegations and the material collected during investigation require a full-fledged trial for determination of the guilt or otherwise of the Appellant. The mere fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and that some prosecution witnesses have already been examined, though relevant considerations, by themselves cannot be treated as sufficient grounds for granting bail in a case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, particularly when the statutory restrictions under the said enactment are attracted. 7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage, the appeal/bail application is dismissed. At the same time, the learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not influence the Trial Court while adjudicating the matter on merits. 6 The Trial Court shall decide the case independently on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra