Bail under UAPA can be denied despite parity claims if the accused has a distinct, grave criminal history and the evidence, including witness testimony, strongly supports the prosecution's case regarding threats to national security.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava along with Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor along with Mr. Ayush Bhatt, Public Prosecutor for respondent / NIA.

2. The appellant has preferred the present bail application under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 arising out of Crime No. 01/2023 registered at Police Station- Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur (C.G.), seeking enlargement on bail in connection with the alleged offence punishable under Sections 34 of the IPC, 25 of the Arms Act and 13(1), 38(2), 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.01.2023, on receipt of confidential information that the appellant Santosh Gupta was in possession of unused live cartridges and was allegedly expecting delivery of a pistol, and that he was purportedly intending to supply the said arms and ammunition to an active Maoist/Naxalite cadre namely Hungo Madkami alias Hunga, stated to be an Area Committee Member (ACM) of Bhairamgarh and President of Revolutionary People’s Committee (RPC), Kotmeta, a police team constituted under the leadership of Sub-Inspector Pankaj Ghar along with Constables Bhansingh Padmakar (508) and Jitendra Bhagat (318) proceeded to verify the information and intercepted the appellant near Sanjaypara, whereupon a personal search was conducted and three live cartridges bearing marking “KF 325 BWL” were allegedly recovered from his right pant pocket along with one touchscreen mobile phone of NARZO make, and since the appellant could not produce any valid licence or authority for possession of the said ammunition, the same were seized vide seizure memo prepared on the spot. During interrogation, the appellant allegedly disclosed that one Prince Sharma of Bijapur was to deliver the pistol, and subsequently, during vehicle checking at about 19:30 hours, two persons arriving from Bijapur on a white colour Hero Extreme motorcycle were intercepted and identified, whereupon on identification by the appellant, one of them was stated to be Prince Sharma, who was subjected to search and from his waist a revolver bearing “MADE IN USA” markings along with a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone was allegedly recovered, while another Samsung mobile phone was recovered from Vijay Sahu, and seizure panchnamas were prepared accordingly. Thereafter, Prince Sharma was issued notice under Section 91 CrPC and in his written reply he stated that he did not possess any arms licence or valid documents, following which his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded in the presence of witnesses leading to further recovery of the pistol and motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-20-J-6404, which were taken into police custody, and the accused persons were arrested for offences punishable under Sections 34 IPC, 25 Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 13(1), 38(2), 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 in CRA No. 1219/2025. However, after passing of order dated 28.08.2025, only two witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. Hence this present bail application.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is wholly innocent and has not committed any offence whatsoever and has been falsely implicated in the prese