2025:CGHC:42032-DB AFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AMARDEEP CRA No. 655 of 2025 CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.21 19:22:15 +0530 Dhanesh Ram Dhruv @ Guruji S/o Dewal Singh Dhruv Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Semhara, Rawandiggi, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

... Appellant versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Mainpur, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - National Investigation Agency Through Superintendent Of Police, N.I.A., Raipur Branch, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 04-04-2025.

Party Added)

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent/NIA : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar with Mr. Ismail Shaikh, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

20.08.2025

1. 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 21.02.2025 passed by the Special/Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.03/2024, 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 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39, 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Section 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, ‘Act of 1908’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘Arms Act’) has been rejected finding no merit.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.11.2023, at about 3:40 PM, after conclusion of polling, 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 appellant, for the aforesaid offences.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the appellant is innocent. He is servant and working in the post of Headmaster and having no nexus whatsoever with the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated in the present crime merely on the basis of suspicion, without any cogent or credible evidence connecting him to the incident in question. He would submit that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. The articles i.e. one literature(booklet) as well as one paper (pamphlet) with respect to COVID-19 has been recovered from the house of the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that after one year of the incident, the police visited the house of the petitioner and arrested him in the present case. No incriminating documents or material connecting the appellant to any unlawful activities have been recovered. It has been contended that the appellant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his prolonged incarceration is causing irreparable hardship to his family members, who are struggling for survival. The appellant undertake to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation and the trial proceedings. The appellant is prepared to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the interest of justice, the appellant humbly prays for grant of bail.

4. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the NIA/respondent vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted tha