1 CGHC010170752026 2026:CGHC:36450-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1231 of 2026 Aman Kesarwani S/o- Shri Rajesh Kesarwani, Aged About 23 Years R/o- Village- Jasra, P.O.- Jasra, P.S. Ghurpur, District- Prayagraj (U.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus Union Of India Through National Investigation Agency, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.Gopa Kumar along with Mr. Ayush Bhatt and Ms. Navya Gopan, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B.Gopa Kumar along with Mr. Ayush Bhatt and Ms. Navya Gopan, learned counsel for the respondent. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.19 10:52:39 +0530 2 2. The present appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been preferred against the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA/Scheduled Crimes, Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in Special NIA Case No. 07/2024, whereby the application preferred by the appellant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of bail in connection with R.C. No. 01/2023/NIA/RPR has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been in judicial custody since 24.08.2025 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the appellant is a permanent resident of Village Jasra, District Prayagraj (U.P.) and is running a cosmetic shop for his livelihood and is the sole earning member of his family. Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating article or firearm has been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant and that his arrest is primarily based upon an alleged financial transaction of about Rs.30,500/- in his bank account. It is contended that there is no material showing any direct involvement of the appellant in the alleged conspiracy or any terrorist activity of the banned organisation. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents, there is no likelihood of his absconding or influencing the prosecution witnesses and that he has remained in custody for a considerable period. Learned counsel also submits that a co-accused, namely Rahul Kumar Manjhi, has already been 3 granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.2474/2026 and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of parity. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the appellant. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/National Investigation Agency opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature and involve offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Arms Act, 1959. It is submitted that, as per the material collected during investigation, the appellant is alleged to have been an active member of the banned Maoist organisation and, on 16.01.2023, to have entered into a criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused persons for attacking and murdering a police party. It is further alleged that the appellant was involved in illegal possession of a revolver without any valid licence and had also purchased/handed over a firearm to other accused persons without lawful authority. Learned counsel submits that the material collected during investigation discloses the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence and that the learned Trial Court, after considering the material available on record, has rightly rejected the prayer for bail. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 4 6. From the material available on record, it appears that the allegations against the appellant are that he was an active member of the banned Maoist organisation and, along with other co-accused persons, entered into a criminal conspiracy for attacking and murdering a police party. It is further alleged that the appellant was in possession of a revolver without any valid licence and had purchased/handed over a firearm to other accused persons for carrying out activities connected with the banned organisation. Thus, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the appellant, the provisions of law invoked against him and the material collected during investigation, we are not inclined to take a different view from that taken by the learned Trial Court at this stage. The statutory restrictions applicable to grant of bail in cases involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are also required to be kept in view. 7. The contention regarding parity with the co-accused has also been considered. However, parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis of grant of bail to another accused. The role attributed to the present appellant and the material available against him have to be considered independently. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has specifically considered the role attributed to the appellant vis-à-vis the co-accused who has been granted bail and has found the role of the appellant to be distinguishable. At this 5 stage, this Court is not satisfied that the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail. 8. We have also taken note of the period of custody undergone by the appellant. However, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available on record and the statutory restrictions applicable to the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the period of custody, at this stage, does not persuade this Court to grant bail to the appellant. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail is rejected. However, the learned Special Judge, NIA/Scheduled Crimes, Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) is directed to make all earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet