Page 1 of 13

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 343 of 2022

Nishant Jain, S/o Suresh Chand Jain, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Shanti

Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Appellant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station-

Siksod, Tehsil- Antagarh, District- Kanker (C.G.)

---- Respondent

For Appellant

:

Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate.

For State

:

Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. Advocate General

D.B.- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel &

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

(16.12.2022)

Per Narendra Kumar Vyas

1.

The bail application of the present appellant- Nishant Jain is

being considered by this Court in view of direction passed by

Hon’ble the Supreme Court on 03.06.2022 in Special Leave to

Appeal No. 5361/2022 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has

passed the following order:-

“However, taking into consideration that the real

brother of the petitioner has been granted bail by

this Court vide order dated 03.01.2022, we are

inclined to grant interim bail till further orders to the

present petitioner on the same terms and

conditions as granted/modified by this Court in the

order dated 03.01.2022.

In the meantime, the High Court would be at liberty

to consider the application of the petitioner, which is

pending before the High Court for grant of regular

bail.”

Page 2 of 13

2.

This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National

Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order

dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge (NIA Act),

Kanker, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker in Bail Application

No.241/2021 by which the appellant's application under Section

439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail for offences under Sections 149,

201, 120 (b)/34 I.P.C. & Section 8(2)(3)(5) of the Chhattisgarh

Vishesh Jan Surksha Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short “the Act of

2005”) and 10,13,17, 38(1), 38(2), 40, 22(a) & (g) of the Unlawful

Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (for short “the UAPA”), Sections

120B, 201 and 149/34 of the IPC has been rejected by recording

its finding that prima facie the appellant has given consent for

payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Naxalite.

3.

As per case of the prosecution, on 24.3.2020 on the basis of

secret information, the respondent searched a vehicle bearing

registration No.CG 07 AH 6555 driven by Tapas Kumar Palit. In

that search, 95 pairs of shoes, green black printed cloths for

uniform, 2 bundles of electric wires each of 100 meter, LED lens,

two sets of walki talki along with charger and other articles were

found in his possession (Tapas Kumar Palit). Seizure was made

accordingly. It is further case of the prosecution that these

articles were to be supplied by Tapas Kumar Palit to naxalites in

order to support their illegal and disruptive activities. It is further

case of the prosecution that said Tapas Kumar Palit was working

with Rudransh Earth Movers Road Construction Company, a

partnership firm of appellant’s brother Ajay Jain and one Komal

Verma. It is further case of the prosecution that Tapas Kumar

Palit provided information that articles were being provided on

the instructions/consent of Ajay Jain and Komal Verma, who

were given consent/permission to do so by Nishant Jain,

Proprietor of M/s Landmark Engineering. The present appellant

has executed Mukhtiyarnama (Adhikar Patra) in favour of Ajay

Kumar Jani wherein it has been directed that the Mukhtiyarnama

(Adhikar Patra) has been given to Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain for all

Page 3 of 13

the work related to package No. C.G.08-124 for Kanker District

only.

4.

It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused was

providing funds as well to naxalites though no cash was

recovered on the said date, but the police arrested all of them

including the appellant on 13.5.2020. It is also case of the

prosecution that Ajay Jain and Kom