1 CGHC010286732026 2026:CGHC:37548-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1848 of 2026 Paklu Aalam S/o Late Bodhi Aalam, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Paralnar, P.S. - Orchha District Narayanpur, C.G. --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Orchha District Narayanpur C.G. ... Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 21/08/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is in custody since 07.09.2025, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, assailing the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), District Kondagaon, whereby his application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of bail in connection with Crime VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.24 10:58:04 +0530 2 No.12/2025 registered at Police Station Orchha, District Narayanpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 18, 20, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.09.2025, during an anti- Naxal search operation in the forest and hilly area of Village Rengabeda-Paralnar, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Orchha, District Narayanpur, the appellant along with other co-accused persons was allegedly apprehended. It is alleged that a BGL launcher and two BGL cells were recovered from the possession of the appellant, whereas other arms and explosive materials were recovered from the co-accused persons. The prosecution further alleges that the appellant disclosed his association with the Maoist organisation and that the recovered articles were intended to be used against the police party for causing harm to DRG personnel, looting their weapons and planting IEDs. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No.12/2025 was registered at Police Station Orchha, District Narayanpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 18, 20, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 3. The appellant was arrested on 07.09.2025 and was produced before the competent Court. Upon completion of investigation, the prosecution proceeded with the trial before the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), District Kondagaon. The prosecution has cited 23 witnesses in support 3 of its case, and the matter is presently at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. The appellant moved an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking his release on bail, which was opposed by the prosecution on the ground of the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material available on record. The learned Special Judge, upon consideration of the case diary and the material available on record, rejected the said bail application vide order dated 03.07.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no credible material on record to establish his involvement in any Naxalite or Maoist activity. It is contended that the appellant has been arrayed as an accused primarily on the basis of the alleged memorandum statement, which is inadmissible in evidence, and that there is no material to establish any intention or mens rea on his part to use the recovered articles for committing the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 07.09.2025. It is also submitted that the evidence of the witnesses examined so far does not establish the appellant's involvement in the alleged Naxalite activities and that there is no scientific report on record to establish that the articles allegedly recovered from the appellant fall within the category of explosives contemplated under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the appellant be enlarged on bail. 4 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the appellant is a permanent resident and there is no likelihood of his absconding or interfering with the course of trial. It is contended that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and continued incarceration of the appellant would cause undue hardship. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application after considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the appellant and the material available on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has cited 23 witnesses, out of whom 7 witnesses have already been examined, and the evidence recorded so far supports the prosecution case regarding the apprehension of the accused persons and recovery of arms and explosive materials from their possession. Learned State counsel would further submit that PW-2 has specifically deposed regarding recovery of BGL launcher and BGL cells from the appellant and his alleged association with the Maoist organisation and the intended use of the recovered articles against the police party. It is, therefore, contended that there is sufficient material connecting the appellant with the alleged offences and that the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, which essentially touch upon the merits of the prosecution case, cannot be conclusively examined at this stage. 7. Learned State counsel would further submit that the offences alleged against the appellant are grave in nature and the evidence of the 5 prosecution witnesses examined so far does not disclose any material contradiction going to the root of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses is still pending and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present appellant. The prosecution case, at this stage, is supported by the statements of the witnesses examined so far, particularly the evidence regarding the apprehension of the appellant and recovery of BGL launcher and BGL cells from his possession. The allegations against the appellant relate to his alleged association with the Maoist organisation and possession of arms and explosive materials allegedly intended to be used against the police party, which are grave and serious in nature. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or to examine the admissibility and evidentiary value of the alleged memorandum statement, as the same would be a matter for consideration by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial. The submission regarding absence of scientific report and the other grounds urged on behalf of the appellant also relate to the merits of the prosecution case and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the material available on 6 record, has already found that the matter is at the stage of evidence and that the examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses is yet to be completed. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The learned Trial Court has rightly considered the gravity of the alleged offences and the other surrounding circumstances while rejecting the bail application. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution has cited 23 witnesses in support of its case, out of whom 7 witnesses have already been examined before the learned Trial Court. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the material available on record and the stage of the trial, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Special Court. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. However, considering that the appellant has remained in custody since 07.09.2025 and the trial is still pending, the learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is clarified that the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made herein. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved