1 CGHC010120662026 2026:CGHC:36450-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 910 of 2026 Prabhat Mishra S/o Anil Mishra, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Padivar, P.S. Chaakghat, District- Rewa (M.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus Union Of India Through National Investigation Agency, Branch Office, Sector 24, Jhanjh, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Keshwarwani, 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. Atul Kumar Keshwarwani, 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. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been preferred by the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.19 10:52:39 +0530 2 appellant challenging the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.I.A./Scheduled Crime, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Special N.I.A. Case No. 07/2024, whereby the application preferred by the appellant seeking grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 01/2023 registered at Police Station- Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 13(1), 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, came to be rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submits that the appellant has been in judicial custody since 14.01.2023. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and that the trial has already substantially progressed. Learned counsel submits that out of total 33 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, 28 witnesses have already been examined before the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that two of the co-accused have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri.) 18423 of 2025 vide order dated 09.01.2026 and hence he prays for grant of bail to the present applicant as well on the ground parity. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/National Investigation Agency opposes the prayer for grant of bail. However, the fact that the trial has substantially progressed and that out of 33 prosecution witnesses, 28 witnesses have already 3 been examined, is not disputed. So far as bail application of the co-accused is concerned, it is submitted that recently bail application of another co-accused namely Santosh Kumar Gupta has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri.) No. 10306/2026 vide order dated 13.08.2026 whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to conclude the trial. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. From the facts placed before this Court, it is apparent that the appellant has remained in custody for a considerable period since 14.01.2023. At the same time, the trial has already commenced and has progressed substantially. Out of the total 33 prosecution witnesses, 28 witnesses have already been examined. Thus, only a few prosecution witnesses remain to be examined and the trial is stated to be at an advanced stage. 7. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the statutory provisions involved, this Court does not deem it appropriate, at this stage, to examine the merits of the prosecution case or record any finding which may have a bearing upon the trial. However, the prolonged incarceration of the appellant and the present stage of the trial are relevant circumstances which warrant an appropriate direction for expeditious conclusion of the proceedings. 8. It is well settled that an accused is entitled to a reasonably expeditious trial and that the criminal proceedings should not 4 remain pending for an unduly long period, particularly when the accused is in custody. At the same time, the learned Trial Court is required to proceed in accordance with law and ensure that adequate opportunity is afforded to the prosecution as well as the accused to lead their respective evidence and make their submissions. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly considering that 28 out of 33 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal can appropriately be rejected directing the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. 10.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or upon the question of entitlement of the appellant to bail, the present appeal is rejected with a direction to the learned Special Judge, N.I.A./Scheduled Crime, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) to make all earnest endeavour to conclude the trial, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 11.A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet