1 2026:CGHC:19568-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 633 of 2026 1 - Raju Mudma S/o Pandu Mudma, Aged About 31 Years Caste Muriya R/o Chintanpalli, Schoolpara P.S. Toynar, District- Bijapur, (C.G.) 2 - Lakhmu Mudma @ Bodda @ Hanif S/o Late Masa Mudma Aged About 39 Years R/o Chintanpalli Schoolpara, P.S. Toynar District- Bijapur, (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Toynar, District- Bijapur, (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 28.04.2026 1. This appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, NIA/Scheduled Offence, Revenue District – Sukma and Bijapur at South Bastar- Dantewada (C.G.) in Special NIA Case No. 39 of 2024, whereby the regular bail ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 application filed by the appellants under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. has been rejected. 2. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant Smt. Laxmi Kudiyam W/o Pratiram Kudiyam lodged an FIR on 29.06.2022 at Police Station Toynar on 28.06.2022 she and her husband were at home, at the same time two unidentified individuals barging into their home, announced that some Naxalis are calling her husband and forcefully took him with them. Following which at 9.00 PM same unidentified individuals informed her that her husband is dead via strangulation and his dead body is left at Modmed Maharpara Talab near Forest. Upon her arrival she found her husband dead beside which one Naxali Paper claiming National Park Area Committee Indian Communist Party, Maoest killed the victim as a punishment. 3. The appellants have been arrested by Police Station Toynar, District-Bijapur, (C.G.) on 14.05.2024 for the alleged offences punishable U/S 302, 364, 449 of IPC and 13(1), 38(2), 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 4. The appellants had preferred an application under Section 483 ot the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for his release on bail before the learned Court i.e. Special Judge NIA/Scheduled Offence, Revenue District Sukma, Bijapur, Dakshin Bastar- Dantewada, (C.G) which has been rejected vide order dated 17.01.2026 (wrongly mentioned as 02.02.2026). Hence, this appeal. 3 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are farmers and daily wage laborers by occupation, and that from the date of the incident until their arrest, they were regularly present at their homes, continuing their farming and daily labor. This can be proved by their bank account details, which show continuous receipt of benefits under the PM KISAN Yojana and the MGNREGA Scheme, as well as evidence of the purchase of equipment for their occupation and medical bills, among other things. He further submits that, out of the seven prosecution witnesses examined by the learned trial court, only two are listed in the charge sheet, while five others are unlisted and have mismatched details. He also submits that the appellants have been in jail for the last two years and that no case has been made out against them. He contends that there is no likelihood of conviction under the sections for which the appellants are facing trial. He further contends that the appellants are permanent residents at the address mentioned in the cause title of the appeal, and there is no possibility of their absconding or tampering with evidence or witnesses. The appellants are willing to furnish adequate security and shall abide by all the directions and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the appellants are facing serious charges under 4 sections that warrant the refusal of bail. He contends that the nature of the offences is grave, and the evidence presented so far, including the statements of the prosecution witnesses, establishes a prima facie case against the appellants. He further submits that while the appellants claim to have been at home and engaged in their daily occupations, the prosecution has presented evidence indicating their involvement in the alleged crime, which cannot be disregarded. The State counsel also points out that the appellants have been in custody for two years, but that alone does not justify bail, as the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out. He urges to consider the gravity of the charges and the potential risk to the investigation, and to deny bail to the appellants in the interest of justice. 7. After considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned State counsel, and reviewing the available records, this Court finds that while the appellants claim to have been engaged in their agricultural occupation and daily labor, the prosecution has established a prima facie case supported by witness statements. The appellants’ claim that only two of the seven prosecution witnesses are listed in the charge sheet, with discrepancies in the details of the others, raises concerns about the consistency of the prosecution’s case. However, these concerns do not diminish the gravity of the charges against the appellants, and the overall 5 evidence presented remains significant. Furthermore, while the appellants are permanent residents and willing to furnish security, the Court finds that releasing them on bail could risk tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, given the serious nature of the offences. The fact that the appellants have been in jail for two years is not sufficient to justify bail, as the charges are severe and require thorough investigation. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants seeking regular bail is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra