1 CGHC010214152026 2026:CGHC:31391-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1446 of 2026 Prakash Soni S/o Late Gautam Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Bakhrupara, District- Narayanpur (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur (C.G.) --- Respondent (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.24 10:42:49 +0530 2 Court (NIA), District Narayanpur, whereby the appellant's application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) for grant of bail has been rejected. 3. The appellant was arrested on 06.06.2025 in connection with Crime No.55/2025 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16(1)(b), 20, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 06.06.2025, acting on a secret information, the Police of Police Station, Narayanpur, apprehended the appellant near Pahadi Mandir, Kumhapara, Narayanpur. During search, cordtex wire, detonators, electric wires, bullets, a scanner, walky-talky sets and a mobile phone were allegedly recovered from his possession. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the appellant was transporting and supplying the aforesaid articles to members of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization for facilitating terrorist activities. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the appellant is merely a hawker dealing in electronic articles in the local market of Narayanpur and has no connection whatsoever with any banned organization or unlawful association. According to the learned counsel, although the FIR was initially registered only for offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the provisions of Sections 16(1)(b), 20, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were subsequently added without there being any substantive material to justify invocation of those provisions. It is 3 further submitted that the appellant has remained in judicial custody since 06.06.2025 and has undergone incarceration for about 11 months and 21 days. The investigation has already been completed, charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is in progress as out of 27 prosecution witnesses, 9 witnesses have already been examined. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further points out that Bhupendra Negi (PW-5) and Sunil Kumar Baghel (PW-6), who are seizure and memorandum witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case regarding seizure and memorandum. Likewise, Tankeshwar Pandey (PW-7) and Khemraj Pandey (PW-8), who are witnesses to the search and seizure proceedings, have also not supported the prosecution case before the trial Court. It is argued that there is no material on record in the nature of electronic evidence, call detail records, digital communication, financial transactions or any other incriminating material connecting the appellant with any member of the banned organization or with any terrorist activity. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and, considering the pace of trial, conclusion thereof is likely to take considerable time. Hence, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposes the appeal and submits that the allegations against the appellant are grave and serious in nature. It is contended that the appellant was apprehended while carrying articles such as detonators, cordtex wire, ammunition, walky-talky sets and other materials which were intended to be supplied to members of the banned Maoist organization. It is further submitted that although nine witnesses have been examined, the trial is progressing and two co-accused persons are 4 still absconding. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the statutory embargo contained in the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of the case. 9. The allegations against the appellant are that he was actively assisting members of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization by supplying explosive substances, ammunition, walky-talky sets, wires and detonators, which were allegedly recovered from his possession while he was travelling on his scooty bearing registration No. CG-21-F-8893. The offences alleged against the appellant include those punishable under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, involving activities affecting the security of the State. It is true that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. It is also a matter of record that nine out of twenty-seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and certain witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in respect of seizure and memorandum proceedings. However, at this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence already adduced before the trial Court. The evidentiary value of the testimony of individual witnesses and its effect on the prosecution case are matters to be assessed by the trial Court upon completion of the entire evidence. It is also not in dispute that two co-accused persons are still absconding and the trial is continuing. 10.Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the recovery allegedly made from the possession of the appellant and the seriousness of the offences alleged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 5 this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, no case for grant of bail is made out. 11.Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Special Court rejecting the appellant's prayer for bail. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant and the fact that the trial has substantially progressed, the learned trial Court is directed to make all possible endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment, without being influenced by any observation, if any, made herein. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu