1 2026:CGHC:15968-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 510 of 2026 1 - Jayant Biswas S/o Jagdish Biswas Aged About 32 Years Resident - P.V.-82, Vijaynagar Thana- Pankhajur Kanker District- U.B. Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Pankhajur District- U.B.Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.09 19:13:56 +0530 2 Special Judge (N.I.A.)/First Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh), whereby the Bail Application No. 88/2025, filed under Section 439/483 of BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police Station Pankhajur, District Kanker, under Sections 120(B), 302/34 (mentioned as 302/149 in bail rejection order of the learned Special Judge), 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25(1)(b)(i) and 27(3) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.01.2024 the complainant, Dipankar Ray, reported at Police Station Pankhajur that at about 08:00 PM his elder brother, Asim Ray, had been shot by unknown persons and was taken to Civil Hospital, Pankhajur for treatment, where the doctor declared him dead. On the basis of this report, Marg No. 02/2024 was registered and thereafter Crime No. 04/2024 was registered against unknown persons under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was commenced. During investigation, CCTV footage from the place of occurrence showed the shooter talking to a journalist, Mithun Mandal, who upon being questioned disclosed the name of one accused, Vikas Talukdar. The investigation further revealed that there was a political rivalry among Bappa Ganguly, Babu Halder and the deceased Asim Ray regarding dominance in the Paralkot area. It was alleged that due to this rivalry, Bappa Ganguly, Vikas Pal, Babu Halder and Jitendra Bairagi conspired to eliminate Asim Ray and engaged 3 shooters through intermediaries after conducting reconnaissance of the deceased. It is alleged that a contract of Rs. 7,00,000 was given to shooter Vikas Talukdar along with his associates Gopi Das and Jayant Biswas, who on 07.01.2024 shot the deceased from behind on the head at Old Bazaar Main Road, Pankhajur, causing his death, and that Sonu Sahu supplied the firearm used in the offence. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against several accused persons including Nilratan Mandal, Somen Mandal, Jayant Biswas, Gopi Das, Bappa Ganguly, Vikas Pal, Jitendra Bairagi, Ripon Sadiyal, Surjit Bala, Samit Majhi, Tapan Mandal, Vikas Talukdar, Sonu Sahu and Pradeep Halder, indicating prima facie involvement in the offence. 4. The appellant has preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS before the Special Judge (NIA), North Bastar, Kanker, District Kanker, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 05.06.2025, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant. 5. Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the prosecution while concealing the true facts. The appellant has been in judicial custody since 11.01.2024 and the charge-sheet has already been filed; however, the trial is still pending and is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The appellant 4 has no criminal antecedents and this is his first alleged offence. It is further submitted that from the material collected by the prosecution and the charge-sheet filed, there is neither any eyewitness nor any reliable circumstantial evidence to show the direct involvement of the appellant in the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act. The case is triable by the Sessions Court and the continued detention of the appellant would serve no useful purpose. The appellant is a permanent resident and possesses movable and immovable properties; therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. 6. It has been further contended that other co-accused persons, namely Pradeep @ Babu Haldar in MCRC No. 4056 of 2025, Nilratan Mandal in MCRC No. 4107 of 2025, and Jitendra Bairagi in MCRC No. 4372 of 2025 (all decided on 18.06.2025), Samit Manjhi and Tapan Mandal in MCRC No. 3063 of 2025 (decided on 09.05.2025), and Gopi Das in MCRC No. 9007 of 2025 (decided on 11.11.2025) have been granted bail by this Court. As such, the present case is similar to the cases of the aforesaid co-accused persons. He further submits that there are as many as 100 listed witnesses, out of which only 10 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. The appellant has been in jail since 11.01.2024 and the trial of the case will take its own time; therefore, he may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 5 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the NIA/respondent vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the present appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the N.I.A. Act against the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, North Bastar Kanker, in Special Session Case No. 50/2024, rejecting the appellant’s application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the impugned order is well-reasoned and has been passed after due consideration of the material available on record. During investigation, substantial evidence has been collected which prima facie establishes the involvement of the appellant and other co-accused in a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased Asim Rai. The investigation revealed that due to political rivalry and supremacy in the Paralkot area, the accused persons hatched a well-planned conspiracy and arranged shooters by paying a contract amount of Rs. 7,00,000, pursuant to which the deceased was shot dead on 07.01.2024 at Purana Bazar, Pakhanjur. The prosecution has collected various pieces of evidence including CCTV footage, witness statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., call detail records, forensic and post-mortem reports, seizure memos, and other documentary material, which clearly connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against fourteen accused persons and the trial is presently pending before the 6 competent Court. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the manner in which the crime was committed pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, and the material available on record, it is submitted that no ground for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, the appellant is in judicial custody since 11.01.2024 in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police Station Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1- B)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is presently pending, wherein out of about 100 listed witnesses only 10 witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. It is also not in dispute that several co-accused persons, namely Pradeep @ Babu Haldar, Nilratan Mandal, Jitendra Bairagi, Samit Manjhi, Tapan Mandal and Gopi Das have already been granted bail by this Court. Considering the period of custody of the appellant, the stage of the trial, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, and particularly the principle of parity 7 with the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, and further considering that the appellant is in jail since 11.01.2024 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant dated 05.06.2025 is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. 10. Let the appellant- Jayant Biswas involved in Crime No.04/2024 registered at Police Station Pankhajur, District Kanker, under Sections 120(B), 302/34 (mentioned as 302/149 in bail rejection order of the learned Special Judge), 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25(1)(b)(i) and 27(3) of the Arms Act, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties (one should be family member) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, on following conditions:- (i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial; and, 8 (iv) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. 11. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and if he fails to appear or take unnecessary adjournment, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds and take him in custody. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok