1 CGHC010300532026 2026:CGHC:34397-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1954 of 2026 Tumesh Nagwanshi S/o Late Punitram Nagvanshi Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 39, Tikrapara, Paikbhatha, Ghatula, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mainpur, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - National Investigation Agency, Through Superintendent of Police, N.I.A., Raipur Branch, Nawa Raipur, District, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 6/8/2026 1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.06 18:23:17 +0530 2 03.07.2026 passed by the learned Special/Sessions Judge, Raipur in Case No. 03/2024, whereby the learned Court below rejected the appellant's application filed under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking release of Rs.1,50,000/- on Supurdnama. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.11.2023, a contingent comprising 48 security personnel and five members of the polling party proceeded for election duty in connection with the second phase of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Election, 2023. After completion of polling, while returning on 17.11.2023, near Bade Gobar, District Gariyaband, alleged members of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization detonated Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) with an intention to kill the police personnel, resulting in casualties. Thereafter, the alleged extremists fled from the spot. 3. On the complaint lodged by SI Ashok Kumar Rai, Crime No.94/2023 was registered at Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 16 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Subsequently, considering the gravity of the offence, investigation was taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 3 4. It is the specific case of the appellant that his name does not find place either in the original First Information Report or in the charge-sheet filed by the NIA. During the course of investigation, the appellant's name allegedly surfaced only on the basis of statements made by certain co-accused and witnesses. 5. On 27.12.2024, the NIA conducted a search at the appellant's residence and recovered an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash. Thereafter, notices dated 16.06.2024, 28.03.2025, 03.04.2025 and 21.02.2026 were issued directing the appellant to appear before the investigating agency and explain the source of the seized cash and to produce his and his wife's bank statements and passbooks. 6. The appellant complied with every notice issued by the investigating agency, appeared before the NIA on each occasion and submitted all documents demanded, including the bank statements of himself and his wife, to establish the lawful source of the seized amount. 7. The appellant is serving as a Forest Guard since 27.09.2013 and has been drawing regular salary from the State Government. During the relevant period he was posted in District Gariyaband and thereafter at Dhamtari. It is his case that the seized amount represented his lawful savings accumulated from his salary and was kept for meeting the anticipated medical expenses of his pregnant wife. 4 8. Since the investigation had already been completed insofar as the seizure was concerned and all documentary evidence regarding the source of the money had been furnished, the appellant filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking interim custody/release of the cash amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on Supurdnama. 9. By order dated 03.07.2026, the learned Special/Sessions Judge, Raipur rejected the said application holding that the seized cash was required to remain in judicial custody. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and the material available on record. It was argued that the appellant is neither named in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet and his alleged involvement has surfaced only during investigation on the basis of statements of co-accused and certain witnesses, which by themselves do not establish any nexus between the appellant and the alleged offence. It was further submitted that the appellant has throughout cooperated with the investigation by responding to every notice issued by the NIA and by producing all documents sought, including his own and his wife's bank statements. The investigating agency has thus already verified the source of the seized amount. 5 11. Learned counsel contended that the appellant is a permanent Government servant working as a Forest Guard since 2013 and has a regular and lawful source of income. The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- constitutes his personal savings accumulated from salary and was kept for the medical treatment of his pregnant wife. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the seized cash represents proceeds of crime or that it was intended to facilitate the commission of any offence. It was further argued that retention of the currency serves no useful purpose because the identity of the currency has already been established through the seizure memo and necessary records. The appellant is willing to furnish adequate security and execute a Supurdnama and also undertakes to produce the amount before the Court whenever directed. Therefore, release of the amount would neither prejudice the investigation nor affect the trial. 12. It was lastly submitted that the learned Special Judge rejected the application without proper appreciation of the material available on record and without assigning cogent reasons, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order dated 03.07.2026 be set aside and the seized amount of Rs.1,50,000/- be released in favour of the appellant on appropriate terms and conditions. 13. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the 6 learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the application considering the gravity and nature of the offences under investigation. It was argued that the present case relates to a serious terrorist incident involving members of a banned Maoist organization, in which security personnel lost their lives due to an IED blast. During investigation, the role of the appellant surfaced through statements of co-accused and other witnesses and the investigation disclosed material indicating his connection with the accused persons. It was further submitted that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was seized during investigation and forms part of the material collected by the investigating agency. At this stage, the source, nature and purpose of the seized cash are matters to be established during trial. Premature release of the seized property may adversely affect the prosecution case and frustrate the object of investigation. 14. Learned counsel further contended that mere production of salary records or bank statements does not conclusively establish that the seized amount is unconnected with the alleged offence. The appellant's defence regarding lawful savings can appropriately be considered during trial after appreciation of evidence. It was therefore submitted that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned Special Judge in rejecting the application and that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 03.07.2026 whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the appellant's application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking release of the seized amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on Supurdnama. 17. The record reveals that the seizure was effected during investigation conducted by the National Investigation Agency in connection with offences involving terrorist activities allegedly committed by members of a banned Maoist organization. The offences alleged are of an extremely serious nature and the seized amount forms part of the material collected during investigation. 18. Though the appellant contends that he is a Government servant having a regular source of income and that the seized amount represents his personal savings, such defence pertains to the merits of the prosecution case and is a matter to be examined during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court is not required to record any finding regarding the ownership or source of the seized amount. 19. The learned Special Judge has considered the gravity of the offences, the nature of the investigation and the relevance of the seized currency in the pending criminal proceedings before 8 rejecting the application. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. 20. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any case for release of the seized amount on Supurdnama at this stage. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu