1 CGHC010274042026 2026:CGHC:36528-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1834 of 2026 1 - Shrimati Narla Shrividya @ Karuna @ Jaya @ Kiranamya @ Kiranmiya @ Nirmala W/o Satish @ Kopa @ Takelapalli Vasudev Rao Aged About 52 Years R/o Deuni Tirumalapuram, Police Station Pedakotapalli, Distt. Naagar Kurnul (Telangana) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sonpur, Distt. Narayanpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 17.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present appeal has been preferred under Section 21 (1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the NIA Act”) filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 passed by Special Judge (NIA Act/Schedules Offences), Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Judge”) in Special Case (NIA Act) No.03/2026 whereby the application INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.20 17:17:08 +0530 2 for discharge from the offences filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The present appeal has also been filed against the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the trial court in the aforesaid case whereby charges under under Sections 191(3), 109/190, 61(2) of BNS, 2023, Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10,13, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, ‘UAPA) have been framed against the appellant. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is an accused in Special Case (NIA Act) No.03/2026 pending before the Special Judge (NIA Act) Narayanpur which was arising out of Crime No.14/2024 registered at Police Station Sonpur for the offences under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, 61(2) and 111(2) of BNS, 2023, Sections 25&27 of The Arms Act, 1959, Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10,13(1), 16, 20, 23, 38(2) and 39(2) of the UAPA Act. The charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons including the appellant before the trial court on 13.01.2026. He would further submit that the present appellant has been identified by the Constables as Rupi Bai during the alleged encounter, however, the appellant has never been identified as Rupi Bai. The said Rupi Bai was alleged to be killed in an encounter and news clippings were published on 13.04.2024 in daily newspaper. The police has framed a fake encounter case showing three women Maoists were killed. He would further submit that sanction for prosecution for the offences under the Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act and UAPA has been granted by the competent authority in a mechanical manner. The sanction for prosecution as per Section 45 of 3 the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation And Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 (in short, the Rules, 2008) is to follow Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules, 2008 which are mandatory in nature. The sanctioning authority has not followed the time limit prescribed under Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules, 2008. The District Magistrate sent their proposal for sanction on 13.10.2025 whereas the sanctioning authority i.e. the State Govt. has granted sanction for prosecution only on 07.01.2026 which is beyond the period of 7 working days as has been prescribed under the Rules. The entire sanction vitiates due to non compliance of mandatory provisions of the Rules, 2008. Therefore, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Fuleshwar Gope Vs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 2610. He would further submit that Rules 3&4 of the Rules, 2008 have been considered by the Supreme Court in Fuleshwar Gope’s case which are browsed in mandatory language and has to be strictly followed. There is no explanation from the sanctioning authority for causing delay in granting sanction for prosecution of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant may be discharged from the alleged offences. 3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that when the sanctioning authority received the recommendation for sanction of prosecution on 31.12.2025, the competent authority i.e. the State Govt. has granted sanction for prosecution on 07.01.2026 which is well within time as has been prescribed under Rules 3 & 4 of the 4 Rules, 2008. He would further submit that from the date of receipt of recommendation to the sanctioning authority, he has granted sanction for prosecution within time and there is no violation of any mandatory provision of the rules. On 13.10.2025 the Superintendent of Police Narayanpur sent the proposal to the District Magistrate along with proposal for sanction for prosecution. On 06.11.2025 the Superintendent of Police also sent a letter to the competent authority for sanction of prosecution and thereafter the competent authority asked for case diary of Crime No.14/2024. On 05.12.2025 the correspondence was made to the District Magistrate for providing case diary of the said Crime Number and thereafter along with case diary the recommendation was again submitted to the competent authority i.e. the Department of Law, which, in turn, forwarded the proposal for sanction from the competent authority which could be received to the sanctioning authority on 31.12.2025 and thereafter on 07.01.2026 the sanction order has been passed. He would further submit that the application for discharge was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory period of 60 days as has been provided under Section 250 of BNSS, 2023 and thus the appellant herself have not availed her remedy well within time. Therefore, the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, examination of witnesses are going on and two witnesses have been examined up to 10.07.2026. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out by the appellant for discharge and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5 4 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused documents annexed with the appeal. 5 This court, vide order dated 28.07.2026, directed the State counsel to file an affidavit of Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, with respect to issue involved in the appeal. In compliance thereof, the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, filed her affidavit on 17.08.2026, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “3. That, on 28/07/2026 the matter was taken up for hearing by the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Chhattisgarh Raipur, to file affidavit with respect to instruction received in the matter. 4. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that, the Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (CG) sent a proposal to the Collector & District Magistrate, District Narayanpur regarding prosecution sanction for prosecution in Crime No. 14/2024, offence U/s Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, Section 04 of Explosive Substances Act against the present accused / appellant. Subsequently vide letter dated 13/10/2025, the Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur has also sent a proposal to the Collector & District Magistrate, District - Narayanpur for the same in Crime No. 14/2024 for offence U/s 10, 13(1), 16, 20, 38(2), 39(2) of Unlawful Assembly (Prevention) Act, 1967. Copy of letter dated 13/10/2025 is being annexed collectively & marked as ANNEXURE D/1. 5. It is submitted that, bare perusal of aforesaid proposal, the office of Collector & District Magistrate, Narayanpur (CG) has sent a letter dated 15/10/2025 to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar (CG) seeking prosecution sanction for prosecution in the matter. The Superintendent of 6 Police, Narayanpur has also sent a letter dated 06/11/2025 to the deponent, regarding prosecution sanction for prosecution under sections 16, 20, 38(2), 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention). Copy of letters dated 15/10/2025 & 06/11/2025 is being annexed collectively & marked as ANNEXURE D/2. 6. It is submitted that, after analyzing the said proposal, the same was marked to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs for necessary approval/recommendation dated 17/11/2025. Thereafter, on 21/11/2025, the department of Law & Legislative Affairs, it transpired that the case diary of Crime No. 14/2024 is not attached in the said proposal, therefore, on 05/12/2025 a letter was sent to the Collector & District Magistrate, Narayanpur for providing the case diary of Crime No. 14/2024. Copy of letter dated 05/12/2025 is being annexed & marked as ANNEXURE D/3. Further on 22/12/2025, the office of the deponent has received proposal sent by the Collector dated 16/12/2025, subsequently on the same date, the said proposal after analyzing placed before the deponent for marking and on 23/12/2025, the said proposal was marked to the department of Law & Legislative Affairs for its kind approval/recommendation. 7. It is respectfully submitted that, on 31/12/2025, an opinion/recommendation has been received from the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh on the proposal sent by the office of deponent. Further, as per the recommendation received from the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh, the draft prosecution sanction order has been submitted for approval before the office of deponent and consequently on 07/01/2026, the deponent granted prosecution sanction in the matter. Copy of order dated 07/01/2026 is being annexed & marked as ANNEXURE D/4. 8. It is respectfully submitted that, as per the information received from the authorities concerned, at present two prosecution witnesses namely Sitaram Sagar, Inspector Police Station Jharaghat district Narayanpur (CG) & Poshendra Usendi, Sub 7 Inspector, Police Station - Dhoudai, District - Narayanpur (CG) have been examined before the learned trial Court on 10/07/2026. Copy of deposition of both the witnesses are being annexed & marked as ANNEXURE D/5. 9. It is humbly submitted that the office of deponent issued instruction to all the Collector & District Magistrate alongwith Superintendent of Police, State of Chhattisgarh with respect to prosecution sanction whereby it was directed that while sending the proposal for prosecution sanction to the government under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, certified case diary of crime alongwith proposal must be send together, so that the order for prosecution sanction could be issued in well within the time. Copy of instruction dated 31/07/2026 is being annexed herewith & marked as ANNEXURE D/6. 10. It is respectfully submitted that while passing order on discharge application, the learned court below has observed that according to provision of Section 250 of B.N.S.S., discharge application ought to have been moved within 60 days of commitment of case U/s 232 of B.N.S.S. whereas in present case, same has been moved after expiry of 60 days time limit so same was dismissed. 11. It is respectfully submitted that, the deponent respectfully submits that, she is duty bound to follow all the directions & orders passed by this Hon'ble Court from time to time and is having deepest & highest regard for this Hon'ble Court. She shall take all measures to ensure compliance of the orders and directions of this Hon'ble Court and shall leave no stone unturned to see that the commands of this Hon'ble Court are punctually obeyed.” 6 From perusal of contents of the affidavit, it has been explained that the sanctioning authority has received the proposal/recommendation for grant of sanction on 31.12.2025 and the sanction has been granted on 8 07.01.2026, as is reflected from order dated 07.01.2026, Annexure-D/4. 7 Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules, 2008, prescribes the time limit for grant of sanction for prosecution which reads as under: “Time limit for making a recommendation by the Authority. 3. The Authority shall, under sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act, make its report containing the recommendations to the Central Government for, as the case may be, the State Government] within seven working days of the receipt of the evidence gathered by the investigating officer under the Code. Time limit for sanction of prosecution. 4. The Central Government [or, as the case may be, the State Government] shall, under sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act, take a decision regarding sanction for prosecution within seven working days after receipt of the recommendations of the Authority.” 8 A bare perusal of Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules, 2008, it transpires that the authority shall make its report to the Central Govt./State Govt. within seven working days from receipt of evidence gathered by the investigating officer under the code and the Central Govt./State Govt. shall take a decision regarding sanction for prosecution within seven working days after receipt of recommendation of the authority. In the present case, the recommendation was received by the State Govt. on 31.12.2025 and thereafter on 07.01.2026 the sanction was granted by the State Govt., which, in the opinion of this court, does not suffer from any perversity or violation of provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008. Further, from perusal of sanction order dated 07.01.2026 it transpires that the State Govt. after considering the entire material produced before it, granted sanction for prosecution, in which we also do not find 9 any illegality or perversity. Further, the trial of the case is in progress and recording of evidences are going on and up to 10.07.2026 two witnesses have already been examined. 9 Even on merits of the case, when we examine the documents annexed with the appeal, we find sufficient material against the appellant for her prosecution under the alleged offences. The present appellant is also an accused in the offence registered at Police Station Miyapur, District Cyberabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, in Crime No.1094 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 61(2),113(3),113(4),113(5), 337 of BNS and Section 10, 13,18 and 20 of UAPA and she has been produced in the present offence under the production warrant issued by the trial court. She was put to Test Identification Parade conducted by the Executive Magistrate in which she was duly identified by the witnesses. The other accused persons are still absconding. Thus, on merit also, we do not find any scope for interference for discharge of the appellant. 10 While considering the scope of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered in the case of M.E. Sivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru, (2020) 2 SCC 768, in Para 17 and 18 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the legal principles applicable in regard to an application sitting discharge, which is as under : “17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles: 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 10 17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or notn there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. 17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial". 17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. 17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. 17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused. 18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of 11 the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” 11 In the matter of Ajay Singh and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 330, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 9 of its judgment held that : “9. Chapter XVIII CrPC provides for trial before a Court of Session. Section 227 empowers the trial Judge to discharge the accused after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution and on being satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The key words of the section are "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused". Interpreting the said provision, the Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala has held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.” 12 Although in paragraph 51.2 of the judgment in case of Fuleshwar Gope (Supra) the Supreme Court has held that the provision of rules 3&4 of the Rules, 2008 are mandatory in nature and has to be followed strictly, 12 however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sanctioning authority have granted sanction on 07.01.2026 after receiving the recommendation/proposal on 31.12.2025 and therefore we do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellant from the judgment passed in Fuleshwar Gope (Supra) as the said case of Fuleshwar Gope (Supra) is distinguishable to the facts of present case. 13 Accordingly, we do not find sufficient ground to interfere in the present appeal with the impugned orders passed by the trial court rejecting the application for discharge and framing of charge against the appellant. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder