1 CGHC010184062026 2026:CGHC:36450-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1325 of 2026 Duddu Prabhakar S/o Late Duddu Thirupalu Aged About 61 Years R/o H. No. 13-235 Ambedkar Nagar, Chimakurti, Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh 523226 ... Appellant(s) versus National Investigation Agency Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aagney Sail, 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. Aagney Sail, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent/National Investigation Agency. 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/Scheduled Offence, Bastar at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in Bail Application No.24/2026 arising out of NIA Case No.06/2023, whereby the second application preferred by the appellant under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of bail has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and was arrested on 21.07.2023, nearly four years after the incident dated 27.07.2019. It is submitted that the appellant was neither named in the original FIR nor in the dehati nalishi and there is no material to show his presence at the place of occurrence or his participation in the incident. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged handwritten note recovered from the scene of occurrence merely contains the names “Duddu” and “Ajay”, which have not been connected with the appellant by any reliable evidence. It is contended that the statements of protected witnesses C and F, even if taken at their highest, only allege that the appellant visited the forest area and exchanged books or memory cards with deceased accused No.10 and do not attribute to him knowledge of or participation in any terrorist act or conspiracy. It is further submitted that no weapon has been recovered from the appellant 3 and the literature allegedly seized from his premises, by itself, does not constitute an offence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecution has failed to place credible material satisfying the requirement of Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, (2021) 8 SCC 797, to contend that mere association with a terrorist organisation or mere support to such organisation is not sufficient unless the material indicates the requisite intention to further its activities. It is submitted that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, whereas the appellant has remained in custody for a substantial period. 5. Learned counsel also submits that there has been substantial progress in the matter after rejection of the appellant’s earlier bail appeal by this Court vide judgment dated 02.09.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.833/2024. It is submitted that charges have subsequently been framed and the trial has commenced. There are in all 166 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only 18 witnesses have been examined till date, and therefore the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet contains 152 documents and 95 material objects, including several electronic devices, and the conclusion of the trial 4 is likely to take a considerable period. Learned counsel submits that the slow pace of the trial and prolonged incarceration of the appellant engage his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the appellant. 6. 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 relate to activities of the proscribed CPI (Maoist) organisation. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation discloses the appellant’s association with the said organisation and his involvement in activities intended to further its objectives. Learned counsel submits that the material seized from the appellant, including electronic devices, memory cards, audio cassettes and revolutionary literature, coupled with the statements of protected witnesses and other material collected during investigation, discloses the nexus of the appellant with CPI (Maoist) and the alleged criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that the appellant has already unsuccessfully challenged rejection of his earlier bail application before this Court and the said order was also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 25.04.2025. It is contended that there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting a different view. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court, after considering the material 5 available on record, has rightly rejected the second bail application. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the material collected during investigation, it appears that the allegations against the appellant are that he was associated with CPI (Maoist), a proscribed organisation, and participated in activities connected with furtherance of its objectives, including the alleged criminal conspiracy relating to the incident dated 27.07.2019 near Tiriya jungle. The prosecution has relied upon the material allegedly seized from the appellant, including mobile phone, memory cards, SIM card, CDs/DVDs, audio cassettes and revolutionary literature, as well as the statements of protected witnesses and other material collected during investigation. At this stage, considering the statutory embargo contained in Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, the Court is required to examine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. Having regard to the material available on record and the allegations attributed to the appellant, we are not persuaded to hold that the accusation against him is wholly unfounded. The defence contentions regarding the identity of “Duddu” and “Ajay” mentioned in the handwritten note, the evidentiary value of the protected witnesses and the nature of the 6 seized material are matters which require appreciation during trial and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the prolonged incarceration and the progress of the trial, pointing out that there are in all 166 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only 18 witnesses have been examined till date. The said submission, as well as the appellant’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been duly considered. However, the period of custody and the likely time required for conclusion of trial have to be considered along with the nature and gravity of the allegations and the statutory restrictions governing grant of bail under the UAPA. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant regarding grant of bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration operate on their own facts and do not persuade us to grant bail in the present case. It is further relevant that the appellant’s earlier bail appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.833/2024, was rejected by this Court vide judgment dated 02.09.2024 and the challenge thereto before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also did not result in grant of bail. Though a subsequent bail application may be considered where there is a substantial change in circumstances, in the present case, the developments relied upon by the appellant do not, in our considered opinion, constitute such a change as would warrant a different view. 10.Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the statutory embargo contained in 7 Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, the previous rejection of the appellant’s bail application by this Court and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances, we are not inclined to take a different view from that taken by the learned Trial Court. The period of custody and the progress of the trial, though taken into consideration, do not, at this stage, persuade us to grant bail to the appellant. 11.Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 12.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