Laluram Korram @ Lalu S/o Sukma Korram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Koushalnar v. Union Of India Through National Investigation Agency, Branch Raipur, District Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19327-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 380 of 2025 Laluram Korram @ Lalu S/o Sukma Korram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Koushalnar, Koushalpara, Police Station Jhara, District Narayanpur (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus Union Of India Through National Investigation Agency, Branch Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ---- Respondent (Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Chief Justice Judge Ramesh Sinha Per 29.04.2025.
Decision
Order , Chief Justice on Board 1. The appellant has preferred this bail application under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) for grant of bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.08/2024, registered at Police Station- National Investigation Agency, Branch -Raipur, District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Section 302, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 2 Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 10, 13(1), 16, 20, 38(2), 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for, short, ‘Act of 1967’). 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, complainant (Lakhesh Kumar Nag @ Lakhesh) made complaint before the Police Station - Narayanpur stating therein that he is working as ‘clerk’ in the office of Ratan Dubey, who is a leader of BJP. On 04-11-2023 he and Ratan Dubey had gone for Election work with his driver by the car and at about 4-5 PM, when they reached at Koshalnar, Bastar, at that time, two persons came and caused murder of Ratan Dubey from the Axe (tangiya). On the basis of said report, FIR was registered, matter was transferred to the National Investigating Agency and appellant has been arrested on 27-06-2024 by NIA. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. After seven months of the incident, name of the appellant has been added in the alleged crime/offence based on the memorandum statement of the main accused Dhansingh Korram against whom charge-sheet was earlier submitted and he is in jail. Appellant has been connected with the Naxalite activities, though he is working as ‘Kendra Prabhari’ at Paddy Purchase/Selling Centre of Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jhara, District-Narayanpur, (CG). As per the statements of the witnesses, the appellant had provided the food to the co- accused persons, who have committed murder of the deceased on 3 the date of incident. The Supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant in which there is no any cogent evidence/material which shows that the appellant was actively involved in the murder of the deceased with the naxallite. The material/evidence collected by the prosecution are not prima facie sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence/crime. Appellant is in jail since 27.06.2024 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, hence, appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/NIA opposes the bail application and submits that there are 09 accused persons involved in the murder of the deceased and out of which, 05 accused persons have been encountered by the Police. The main accused Dhansing Kurram was arrested, earlier charge-sheet has been submitted against him and he is languishing in jail. So far as the present appellant and other two accused persons namely Saita @ Jailal and Sainuram Kurram against whom charge-sheet has been submitted and their participation has come in the light during course of investigation. Name of the present appellant was also disclosed in the memorandum statement of the main accused (Dhansing Kurram). He further pointed out that from the statement of the protected witness, it reflects that present appellant has not only provided the food to the co-accused persons on the alleged date of incident, but also some gesture were also made by him which goes to show his involvement in the conspiracy of the murder of the deceased. Further, some incriminating material/evidence has 4 been recovered from the house of the appellant which also confirmed his involvement in the alleged crime/offence. One of the co-accused namely Saita @ Jailal also happens to be the relative of the present appellant who was also involved in the naxallite activities, thus, prima facie there is on recorded evidence against the appellant and other. As such, the present appellant may not be released on bail considering the proviso of Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material/evidence available on record. 6. Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967, reads as under:; “(5). Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.” 7. Perusal of material/evidence brought on record particularly the evidence of protected witness would show that the appellant has not only provided the food to the co-accused persons but also actively 5 participated in making gestures and further celebrating the murder of the deceased. 8. Considering facts and circumstance of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, the fact that some incriminating material has been recovered from the house of the appellant, particularly the evidence of the protected witness which shows the prima facie involvement of the appellant in the alleged crime/offence, further considering the proviso of Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967, it cannot be said that it is a case of false implication. 9. Accordingly, bail application of appellant -Laluram Korram @ Lalu is hereby rejected. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the concerned trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice J.