1 CGHC010250432026 2026:CGHC:31955-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1588 of 2026 Manish @ Mariyanus Kerketta S/o Shri Lal Say Kerketta Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Sonajari P.S. - Lailunga, Distt. -Raigarh (C.G. ... Appellant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Bagbahar, Police Outpost Kotba Distt. -Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Adv. General _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 27.07.2026 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 26.05.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case (NIA) No. 05 of 2026, 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 prosecution story in brief is that the complainant, mother of the victim lodged the written report on 28.01.2020 at Police Station Bagbahar, Police outpost Kotwa Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) with the averment that her daughter aged about 17 years 07 Months 25 days has left the house without informing anyone on 11.01.2020, the family members search whereabout of the girl and after few days complainant came to know from the neighbors that one Pradeep Ekka taken her daughter, the victim to Delhi for providing good job. Based on the said complainant, the impugned FIR has been registered against the accused under Sections 363, 370, 370(4) of IPC and during course of investigation statement of complainant were recorded. The victim girl was recovered and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the co-accused namely Pradeep Ekka, Ku. Rajmati showing the appellant absconded, thereafter appellant came to know about the registration of crime, he filed the application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2026 then he surrendered before the trial court and filed the application for grant of regular bail which was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case, as his name does not find place in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the prosecution case itself reveals that the victim had voluntarily 3 accompanied the co-accused, Pradeep Ekka, to Delhi for employment with the consent and knowledge of her family members, and only thereafter an FIR alleging abduction came to be lodged. He also submitted that the main co-accused, namely Pradeep Ekka and Rajmati, have already been acquitted on merits in Sessions Trial No. 26/2020 vide judgment dated 17.09.2021. It is conteneded that during the said trial, the victim as well as her mother, the complainant, were examined and both turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution case or make any allegation against the present appellant. The investigation has since been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, yet no direct or circumstantial evidence has been collected to establish the appellant's involvement in the alleged offence under Section 370 of the IPC. It is further contended that the appellant was never absconding and had been residing in his village, engaged in agricultural activities. Upon learning about the registration of the case, he approached the Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail, and after its rejection on 02.02.2026, he voluntarily surrendered before the police, demonstrating his bona fides and willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The appellant is a 26-year-old permanent resident of Village Sorajori with deep roots in society, and there is no allegation that he assisted the co-accused in abducting or trafficking the victim. His case stands on a much better footing than that of the co-accused who have already been acquitted and who have also been 4 granted bail by this Hon'ble Court, therefore, it is submitted that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submitted that the appellant is facing trial for a serious offence punishable under Section 370 of the IPC involving human trafficking, which is a grave offence against society. It was contended that although the appellant's name is not mentioned in the FIR, the investigation subsequently revealed his involvement, leading to the filing of the charge-sheet against him. The absence of his name in the FIR by itself does not absolve him of criminal liability. It was further submitted that the acquittal of the co- accused does not automatically entitle the appellant to bail, as his case has to be considered on its own facts and the evidence collected against him. The fact that the victim and the complainant turned hostile during the trial of the co-accused cannot be treated as conclusive at this stage, and the prosecution is entitled to rely upon other evidence available on record during the course of trial, hence, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the prayer for grant of bail be rejected. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered to the rival submissions and upon perusal the materials available on record, this Court is not inclined to extend 5 the benefit of bail to the appellant. The allegations against the appellant pertain to the commission of an offence punishable under Section 370 of the IPC, which is a serious offence having grave societal ramifications. Though it has been argued that the appellant's name does not find place in the FIR, the co-accused have been acquitted, and the victim as well as the complainant turned hostile during the trial, these aspects are matters to be appreciated by the learned Trial Court at the stage of trial on the basis of the entire evidence led by the parties. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or record any finding on the merits of the prosecution case. The filing of the charge-sheet and the completion of investigation, by themselves, do not entitle the appellant to bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and further considering the fact that there is every likelihood of absconding, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. 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 6 influence the Trial Court while adjudicating the matter on merits. 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