The court ruled that, under UAPA, bail cannot be granted where prima facie evidence establishes serious allegations against national security, emphasizing the heightened standard for bail in terrorism cases.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NIA.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (Amendment) Act, 2019 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NIA)/Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.03/2024 (State Vs. Mohan Lal Yadav alis Mohan Yadav and others), arising out of Crime No.94/2023 registered at Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband (C.G.), by which the appellant's application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 121, 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, ‘Act of 1908’), Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘Arms Act’) and Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39, and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, ‘UAPA’), has been rejected finding no merit.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.11.2023, at about 3:40 PM, after the conclusion of vote casting, the deceased, I.T.B.P. Constable Jogendra Kumar, was returning along with the security force. When they reached near Badegobra, an intentional bomb blast was carried out with the intent to kill. As a result of the said bomb blast, Constable Jogendra Kumar sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. On the basis of the said incident and complaint, the concerned police station registered a criminal case against the accused persons, including the present appellants, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 121, 121-A of the IPC, Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39, and 40 of the UAPA.

4. The appellant preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS before the Special Judge (NIA), Raipur, District Raipur, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.01.2025, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed.

5. Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the appellants are innocent villagers, having no nexus whatsoever with the alleged offences. They have been falsely implicated in the present crime merely on the basis of suspicion, without any cogent or credible evidence connecting them to the incident in question. It is respectfully submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. The articles allegedly seized, such as Rapa, Gaiti, and Sabbal, are ordinary agricultural tools commonly found in rural households and cannot be considered evidence of any involvement in the alleged crime. The learned counsel for the appellants further submit that arrest of the appellants on 14.06.2024 was arbitrary as the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law by not producing them before the nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of their detention, in violation of the constitutional safeguards enshrined under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. There is no direct allegation against the appellants. Their names do not appear in the FIR, nor is there any eyewitness account connecting them to the alleged offence. The appellants have been implicated merely on conjecture and suspicion, without a fair or proper investigation. It is further submitted that the alleged seizure of articles after an inordinate delay of eight month