##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:13998-DB NAFR

Digitally signed by INDRAJEET INDRAJEET SAHU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SAHU Date: 2026.03.25

18:51:30 +0530 CRA No. 1689 of 2025

1 - Aytu Usendi S/o Manu Usendi Aged About 36 Years

2 - Dhoba Badhda S/o Bondga Aged About 28 Years

3 - Dhoba Badhda S/o Gore Badhda Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kodliyar, P.S. Kohkameta, District Narayanpur (C.G.)

... Appellants versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Kohkameta, District Narayanpur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Shri Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.

For State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

Judgment on Board

24.03.2026

Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ .

1 The present appeal has been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the NIA Act”) filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (NIA Act/Scheduled Offences), Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Judge”) in connection with Crime No.13/2024, registered at Police

2

Station Kohkameta, District Narayanpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),191(3),190,61(2),111(2)(b) and 103 of BNS, 2023, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for short, ‘Arms Act’) as well as Sections 3,4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 10,13(1),16,20,38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, ‘UAPA). By the said order dated 10.06.2025 the application filed by the appellants under Sections 167(2) of CrPC read with Section 187(2) of BNSS, 2023 has been rejected holding that the period for filing charge sheet has already been extended up to 180 days as provided under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA and in view of the aforesaid extension of period for completion of investigation, the application filed by the appellants is not maintainable.

2 Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have approached this Court

contending that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and material irregularity. It is urged that the extension of time granted under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA was mechanical and contrary to the mandatory requirements of law, and consequently, the rejection of the appellant’s application for default bail under Section167(2) CrPC read with Section 187 of the BNSS has resulted in a serious infraction of the appellant’s indefeasible right to personal liberty as guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3 The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellants Aytu Usendi,

Dhoba Badhd S/o Bondga and Dhoba Badhda S/o Gore Badhda are the accused persons in the aforesaid crime registered at Police Station Kohkameta. The allegation against the appellants are that they been associated with certain unlawful and extremist activities connected with

3

banned organisations and involved in illegal activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the country and has committed the alleged offence. The appellants have been arrested on 27.01.2025. They were sent to judicial custody and detained in Sub-jail Narayanpur from 27.01.2025. After lapse of 108 days of their detention in jail under judicial remand, the appellant have filed an application under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 187(2) BNSS on the ground that 90 days period for completion of investigation is lapsed, yet final report could not be submitted by the police and there is no permission obtained from the court for further investigation. Therefore, the

appellants are entitled for default bail.

4 Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned

orders dated 10.06.2025 as being wholly unsustainable in law and in direct contravention of the mandatory statutory safeguards embodied in Section 43-D(2) (b) of the UAPA and Section 187 of the BNSS. He further submits that the order dated 10.06.2025 by which the applicati