1 CGHC010245072026 2026:CGHC:34097-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1598 of 2026 Nitesh Kumar S/o Dilbandhu Ram Aged About 26 Years R/o Shivnathpur Ps Sitapur District- Surguja (C.G.) (In Jail) ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Lakhanpur District- Surguja (C.G.) (Mistekenly Mentioned As District Korea ) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. For State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 05/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.06 11:03:32 +0530 2 25.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Ambikapur, District- Surguja in Special Criminal Case (NIA) No.02/2026, whereby the appellant's application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.306/2025, registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 143(2), 127(2), 238 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, has been rejected finding no merit. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix, aged about 18 years, was allegedly allured by co-accused Dhani Kujur on the pretext of providing her earrings and was taken from her village to Ambikapur on 15.11.2025 without informing her family. At Ambikapur, she met the present appellant and other co-accused persons, namely, Alka Oraon and Ashok. It is alleged that the co- accused took away her ornaments, mobile phone and clothes, and thereafter, all of them took the prosecutrix by train to Ujjain, where she was allegedly confined in a house. The prosecution further alleges that the prosecutrix was informed that she had been sold for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and was not permitted to leave. Subsequently, when she raised an alarm while being shifted to another place, local persons informed the police, whereupon she was rescued and later brought back to her native place. On the basis of her written complaint, FIR bearing Crime No.306/2025 was registered on 02.12.2025 at Police Station 3 Lakhanpur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the aforesaid offences and the appellant was arrested on 06.12.2025. The appellant preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS before the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Ambikapur, District - Surguja, which has been rejected by order dated 25.02.2026, against which the present criminal appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case though he has neither committed nor participated in the alleged offence. He further submitted that even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, the allegation of alluring the prosecutrix from her house is specifically against co-accused Dhani Kujur, whereas the allegation regarding taking away the ornaments is against co- accused Alka Oraon and the allegation of retaining the mobile phone is against co-accused Ashok. It is further submitted that no specific overt act constituting the offence of human trafficking has been attributed to the present appellant and there is no allegation that he induced, received or paid any consideration for trafficking the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has been implicated merely on the basis of his acquaintance with the co-accused persons. He also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 06.12.2025. He further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have been framed and the case has been fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, therefore, the 4 trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant is involved in serious offences punishable under Sections 143(2), 127(2), 238 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and there is sufficient material available on record prima facie establishing his involvement in the alleged offences. It is submitted that the appellant is a named accused in the FIR and the prosecutrix has specifically named him in her written complaint as well as in her statements recorded during the course of investigation. He further submitted that the appellant had accompanied the other co- accused persons in taking the prosecutrix to Ujjain, where she was allegedly kept in wrongful confinement after being trafficked, and the prosecution case is that she was informed that she had been sold for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have been framed and the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence. Learned State counsel also submitted that considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the appellant, the learned Special Judge, after due consideration of the material available on record, has rightly rejected the bail application and no interference is warranted in 5 the impugned order. It is, therefore, prayed that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the appellant, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during the course of investigation, the fact that, as per the prosecution case, the only allegation against the present appellant is that he accompanied the other co-accused persons in taking the prosecutrix to Ujjain, and further considering that the charge- sheet has already been filed, charges have been framed, the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, and the final adjudication of the case is likely to take some time, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Ambikapur, District - Surguja in Special Criminal Case (NIA) No.02/2026 is set aside and the instant appeal is allowed. 8. Let the appellant, Nitesh Kumar, involved in Crime No.306/2025, registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 143(2), 127(2), 238 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned/Special Judge, for 6 his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. 9. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal arising out of the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence and material available on record, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-Sd/-Sd (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok