Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.22 18:35:29 +0530 2025:CGHC:34789-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 909 of 2025 Santosh Potam S/o Late Sukku Potam Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Korcholi Police Station Gangalur District- Bijapur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Gangalur District - Bijapur (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Chief Justice Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amarnath Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against 2 the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, N.I.A. Act/Scheduled Crime, Revenue District Sukma and Bijapur at South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Case No.27/2024, arising out of Crime No.19/2024 registered at Police Station Gangalur, District Bijapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), Sections 4, 5 of Explosive Substance Act, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 10, 13, 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activity Prevention Act, 1967 (for short, ‘UAPA’), by which the appellant's application has been rejected, finding no merit. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.03.2024, the complainant Sarvesh Durgam, resident of Gangalur, lodged a report at Police Station, Bijapur, alleging therein that on 24.03.2024, while he along with his brother Deepak Durgam was proceeding towards Atal Awas Para Metric Boys Hostel, Bijapur, they were suddenly ambushed by a group of 10-12 persons, who started firing indiscriminately at them with automatic weapons. As a result, the complainant sustained injuries on his shoulder, and his brother Deepak Durgam took him to the hospital for treatment. Based on the said report, offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 201 of the IPC Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 10, 13, 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the UAPA have been registered against the accused persons, namely Shankar Kursam (Militia Commander), Shanti Punem (ACM Member), Sannu Korsa, Manglu Mandvi, Naresh Tati, Raju Kursam, Sukalu and other 4-5 unidentified 3 Maoists, as well as Dashru Modiyam, Ranu Hapka and other members allegedly associated with Bachao Manch Gorna. 4. During the course of investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, the present appellant was arrested on 27.03.2024 in connection with the said offences. The appellant preferred an application for grant of regular bail before the Court below, which was rejected vide order dated 04.12.2024. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal seeking grant of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case merely on the basis of suspicion and without any cogent evidence connecting him to the alleged offences. He further submits that the appellant is a student pursuing his B.A. Part-I from Government Shahid Venkatrao Postgraduate College, Bijapur and was residing in Post Metric Boys Hostel, Bijapur at the relevant time. The appellant is not a member of any Maoist organization and has no connection with any unlawful activity or with any of the alleged co-accused persons. It has been contended that the prosecution has alleged recovery of one mobile phone, 5 detonators, and 40 pamphlets from the appellant, which by itself does not establish any active participation in the alleged offences. Mere possession of such articles, without any overt act linking the appellant to the alleged incident, is insufficient to deny bail. It has been further contended that the appellant has no criminal antecedents 4 and is a young student with no history of involvement in any unlawful activities. The material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have already been examined before the learned Trial Court, and their depositions have been brought on record. Hence, there is no likelihood of the appellant influencing or tampering with the witnesses. It has been argued that out of 25 prosecution witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined so far, and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Keeping the appellant in custody for an indefinite period will serve no fruitful purpose and will amount to pre-trial punishment. The appellant has been in custody since 27.03.2024, and further detention would cause irreparable harm to his education and future prospects, as such, prays that the appellant be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits the the offences alleged against the present appellant are of a serious and grave nature, involving attempt to murder, use of explosives, possession of illegal arms, and offences under the UAPA. The allegations pertain to an armed assault on the complainant by a group of suspected Maoists, in which the complainant suffered gunshot injuries. He further submits that the present appellant has been specifically named during the investigation on the basis of the memorandum statements of co-accused persons and was arrested on 27.03.2024 for his alleged involvement in the said incident. During the investigation, the recovery of incriminating materials from the appellant, namely one mobile phone, 5 detonators, and 40 pamphlets of banned 5 organizations, clearly links the appellant to unlawful activities, despite his denial of association. The allegations are not limited to mere recovery; the appellant is alleged to be actively involved in facilitating or supporting Maoist activities, which pose a serious threat to law and order and the security of the State. It has been submitted that the offences under Sections 10, 13, 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the UAPA, along with offences under the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and Explosive Substances Act, carry severe punishment and are considered offences against the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. Such offences are viewed with greater scrutiny in matters of bail. It has been further submitted that the trial is at a crucial stage, and although some witnesses have been examined, the prosecution still has to examine key witnesses, and there is every likelihood that the appellant, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, or re-establish connections with extremist groups. The gravity of the offences, coupled with the potential threat to society, outweighs the plea of the appellant regarding his education or clean antecedents. The liberty of an individual must be balanced against the interest of public safety and the seriousness of the accusations, as such, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the appellant’s bail application after considering all relevant factors, and no interference is warranted by this Court. 8. It has been further submitted by the learned State Counsel that the sister of the appellant is also allegedly involved in Naxalite activities, and her whereabouts are presently not known. 6 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned State counsel, and upon perusal of the case diary, the materials collected during the course of investigation, and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the appellant are of a serious and grave nature, involving offences under the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and the UAPA. The appellant is alleged to have links with banned extremist organizations and is purportedly involved in activities prejudicial to public peace and national security. The recovery of detonators, pamphlets, and other incriminating materials from the possession of the appellant lends further support to the prosecution case at this stage. 10. It has also been submitted by the learned State counsel that the sister of the appellant is allegedly involved in Naxalite activities and her whereabouts are presently not known. This fact further strengthens the apprehension of the investigating agency regarding the appellant's involvement in activities connected to banned extremist groups. 11. Though it is urged on behalf of the appellant that he is a student with no prior criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the gravity of the offences, the nature of the allegations, and their potential impact on public safety clearly outweigh the personal circumstances pleaded on his behalf. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances 7 while rejecting the appellant’s application for bail. No infirmity, perversity, or illegality is found in the impugned order warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall remain in judicial custody. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude it in accordance with law. 14. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Trial Court forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu