1 CGHC010180352026 2026:CGHC:30847-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1226 of 2026 Shrimati Narla Shrividya @ Karuna @ Jaya @ Kiranmya @ Kiranmiya @ Nirmala W/o Satish @ Kopa @ Takelapalli Vasudev Rao Aged About 52 Years R/o Deuni Tirumalapuram, P.S. Pedakotapalli, Distt. Naagar Kurnul (Telangana). ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sonpur, Distt. Narayanapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For State/NIA : 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 21.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Kishore Narayan, 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: 2026.07.22 10:16:51 +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 20.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA), Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) in Special Case (NIA Act) No.03/2026, arising out of Crime No.14/2024 registered at Police Station Sonpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, 61(2) and 111(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10, 13(1), 16, 20, 23, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, "the UAPA"), whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the appellant's first application for regular bail preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that in view of the embargo contained under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and the gravity of the allegations, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of secret information regarding the presence of Maoists in the forest area, a joint team comprising personnel of the District Reserve Guard (DRG), Special Task Force (STF), Border Security Force (BSF) and local police proceeded towards the villages Hachkoti, Binagunda, Chhindpur, Adnar and Kanker on 27.08.2024 to conduct an anti-Naxal operation. On 29.08.2024 at about 8:00 A.M., while the security forces were proceeding from Pangur towards Hachkoti within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sonpur, District Narayanpur, they allegedly came under 3 indiscriminate firing by about 35-40 armed Maoists, to which the security forces retaliated. After the exchange of fire, the dead bodies of three unidentified women Maoists were recovered from the spot along with Naxalite literature, country-made firearms and other incriminating articles. Consequently, Crime No.14/2024 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, 61(2), 111(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10, 13(1), 16, 20, 23, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. During the course of investigation, the appellant, who was lodged in Central Jail, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad in another case, was secured on a production warrant, arrested on 25.09.2025, subjected to a Test Identification Parade on 27.09.2025, and thereafter charge-sheet came to be filed against her on 13.01.2026. Her first application for regular bail having been rejected by the learned Special Judge (NIA), Narayanpur by order dated 20.03.2026, the present appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is a woman and is a permanent resident of the State of Telangana. It is contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution case arises out of an encounter alleged to have taken place on 29.08.2024, when a joint team comprising personnel of the DRG, STF, BSF and local police allegedly came under attack by a group of 35-40 Maoists in the forest 4 area between Pangur and Hachkoti, resulting in exchange of fire and death of three unidentified women Maoists. It is submitted that the appellant was nowhere present at the spot and was not arrested from the place of occurrence. Rather, she was already lodged in Central Jail, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad in connection with another criminal case and was subsequently brought to Narayanpur on a production warrant, whereafter she was arrested on 25.09.2025. It is argued that except for the alleged identification in a Test Identification Parade conducted after her arrest, there is no legally admissible material connecting the appellant with the alleged incident. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the entire prosecution case against the appellant rests upon a highly doubtful Test Identification Parade conducted inside the Police Station, wherein the appellant is alleged to have been identified by two surrendered Maoists who had subsequently joined the police force as constables. It is contended that such identification proceedings lack credibility and cannot constitute reliable material to deny liberty to the appellant. It is further argued that no firearm, ammunition, explosive substance or any other incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. According to learned counsel, the memorandum statement attributed to the appellant nowhere discloses that she was known by the alias "Rupi", whereas the prosecution seeks to connect her with one "Rupi" solely on the basis of assumptions. It is further contended that the prosecution itself has described the assailant "Rupi" as a DVCM cadre, whereas the charge-sheet describes the appellant as an SZCM 5 member, thereby creating a serious inconsistency in the prosecution case. Learned counsel would also submit that the prosecution story itself appears inherently improbable inasmuch as despite an alleged encounter involving 35-40 armed Maoists and a police force of more than one thousand personnel, not a single member of the security forces sustained any injury, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful. 6. It is further submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 16, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the UAPA are not prima facie attracted against the appellant. It is argued that there is no allegation that the appellant possessed or used any firearm or explosive substance during the alleged incident, nor is there any material to establish that she committed any terrorist act or rendered any support to a terrorist organisation so as to attract the provisions of the UAPA. Learned counsel would further contend that the sanction granted under Section 45 of the UAPA is ex facie illegal, inasmuch as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2008 has not been complied with. It is submitted that the recommendation of the Independent Authority within the prescribed statutory period is a mandatory requirement and non- compliance thereof vitiates the sanction itself. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India to contend that the timelines prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 are mandatory and require strict adherence. It is lastly submitted 6 that the appellant has remained in judicial custody since 25.09.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed on 13.01.2026, custodial interrogation is no longer required and, therefore, the learned Special Judge has erred in rejecting the appellant's first application for regular bail. 7. Per contra, learned Deputy Director of Prosecution appearing for the State vehemently opposes the appeal and supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation clearly discloses the active participation and involvement of the appellant in the activities of the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation. Learned State counsel submits that during investigation it surfaced that the appellant, also known by several aliases, was an active member of the proscribed organisation and participated in the armed attack launched by Maoists upon the security forces on 29.08.2024. It is submitted that after the appellant was brought from Central Jail, Hyderabad on production warrant, a Test Identification Parade was conducted on 27.09.2025, wherein she was correctly identified by the witnesses. Apart from the identification proceedings, the statements of several prosecution witnesses, including police personnel as well as surrendered Maoists associated with the police force, prima facie establish that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence and fled from the spot during the exchange of fire. 8. It is further submitted that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed against the appellant for offences 7 under the BNS, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act and UAPA, and the learned trial Court has rightly recorded its satisfaction that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true, thereby attracting the statutory embargo contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. It is, therefore, contended that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the appellant and the material collected during investigation, no ground for grant of bail is made out and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Learned State counsel further submits that the appellant has two criminal antecedents of a similar nature registered against her in the State of Telangana, which prima facie reflect her continued association with the activities of the banned organisation. It is further submitted that the present crime has been registered against about six to seven accused persons, out of whom, except the present appellant, all the remaining accused are still absconding. Learned State counsel contends that, in view of the appellant's criminal antecedents, her alleged involvement in offences of a similar nature and the fact that the co-accused are yet to be apprehended, there exists a substantial likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, the appellant may abscond and evade the process of law. It is also submitted that her release at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing prosecution by influencing witnesses, tampering with the prosecution evidence or otherwise obstructing the fair conduct of the trial. On these grounds also, it is prayed that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and carefully perused the material on record. 11. The present appeal arises out of rejection of the appellant's first application for regular bail in connection with offences punishable under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Since the appellant is charged for offences under the UAPA, the restrictions engrafted under Section 43D(5) of the Act are clearly attracted and the scope of consideration at the stage of bail is circumscribed by the statutory embargo contained therein. At this stage, the Court is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence or record a finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, but is only required to examine whether, upon a broad assessment of the material collected during investigation, there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true. 12. On a careful examination of the material placed before this Court, it appears that the prosecution case is that on 29.08.2024, a joint team comprising personnel of the DRG, STF, BSF and local police, while conducting anti-Naxal operations in the forest area between Pangur and Hachkoti under Police Station Sonpur, District Narayanpur, came under indiscriminate firing by a group of armed Maoists. The prosecution alleges that the appellant, who is stated to be an active member of the 9 banned CPI (Maoist) organisation and known by several aliases, was one of the participants in the said armed encounter. During the course of investigation, after securing the appellant on production warrant from Central Jail, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, a Test Identification Parade was conducted on 27.09.2025, wherein the appellant was identified by prosecution witnesses. Besides the identification proceedings, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of several witnesses, including members of the security forces as well as surrendered Maoists, who have prima facie stated that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence and escaped during the exchange of fire. The charge-sheet has also been filed incorporating the aforesaid material collected during investigation. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently questioned the legality and evidentiary value of the Test Identification Parade, the validity of the sanction granted under Section 45 of the UAPA, the alleged discrepancies regarding the appellant's aliases and rank in the banned organisation and has also contended that no incriminating article has been recovered from the appellant. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, all these submissions relate to the appreciation of evidence and the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. Whether the Test Identification Parade has been properly conducted, whether the sanction suffers from any legal infirmity, whether the prosecution witnesses are reliable and whether the evidence ultimately establishes the complicity of the appellant are all issues which require detailed examination during the 10 course of trial after the parties lead evidence. At the stage of consideration of bail under the UAPA, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous analysis of evidence or to record findings on disputed questions, as doing so may prejudice either side during trial. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, has consistently held that at the stage of considering bail, the Court is only required to record a prima facie satisfaction on the basis of the material collected during investigation and is not expected to conduct a mini trial or weigh the evidence as if deciding the case on merits. If, upon a broad reading of the charge-sheet and the accompanying material, the Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true, the statutory embargo contained under Section 43D(5) comes into operation and ordinarily the accused would not be entitled to the benefit of bail. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material collected during investigation, including the statements of prosecution witnesses and the Test Identification Parade, cannot, at this stage, be said to be wholly unbelievable or inherently improbable so as to completely dislodge the prosecution case. Consequently, it cannot be held that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true. 15. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the appellant in the commission of the offence, the material 11 collected during investigation, the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution, the appellant's criminal antecedents in the State of Telangana in cases of a similar nature, the fact that except the present appellant, the remaining accused persons are still absconding, and the statutory embargo contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Special Judge has not committed any illegality or perversity in rejecting the appellant's first application for regular bail. This Court is also of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that, if enlarged on bail, the appellant may abscond, evade the process of law or may influence the prosecution witnesses, tamper with the evidence or otherwise obstruct the fair conduct of the trial, cannot be said to be wholly unfounded. No ground is, therefore, made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. 16. Consequently, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has remained in judicial custody since 25.09.2025, the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and there are 29 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned Special Judge (NIA), Narayanpur to make all endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this 12 order, subject, of course, to there being no legal impediment. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal for grant of bail and shall not prejudice the trial on merits. 17. It is made clear that the observations recorded herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present appeal arising out of rejection of bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be decided independently by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. 18. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu