The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that trial courts have the authority to grant pardon to an accomplice in order to secure truthful testimony, even if the person is not in custody, under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) (now Section 344 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Court set aside an order of the NIA Special Court, Jagdalpur, which had rejected the National Investigation Agency’s application seeking to tender pardon to a surrendered Naxalite in a case involving terror-related offences.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the judgment on an appeal filed by the Union of India through the NIA (CRA No. 551 of 2025), challenging the NIA Court’s order dated February 7, 2025.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from Crime No. 68/2023 registered at Kotwali Police Station, District Bijapur, under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005. The accused Dinesh Tati was arrested with Rs. 10 lakh in ₹2000 notes, 80 Naxal pamphlets, a passbook, and medicines. Upon interrogation, he allegedly confessed that he received the cash from surrendered Naxalites, including Shanti Hemla and Pandru Pottam, members of the banned CPI (Maoist), for the purpose of purchasing a tractor and distributing Naxal propaganda.
Later, offences under Sections 10, 13(1)(2), 39, and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were also invoked. Given the gravity of the offences, the Central Government handed over the investigation to the NIA, which re-registered the FIR as RC No. 17/2024/NIA/RPR.
During the investigation, the NIA sought permission under Section 343 BNSS (corresponding to Section 306 CrPC) to tender pardon to one of the accomplices—a surrendered Naxalite working as a “secret soldier” under a state rehabilitation scheme.
Arguments and Analysis:
The NIA Special Court rejected the application, citing non-compliance with Section 306(4)(b) CrPC (now 343(4)(b) BNSS), which requires the approver to be in custody unless already on bail. Since the person had not been arrested, the court held the condition was not met.
The High Court, however, disagreed. It held that the trial court misapplied the statutory provision and failed to consider its own power under Section 307 CrPC (now Section 344 BNSS), which allows the trial court to tender pardon “at any time after commitment of the case but before judgment.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, (1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80), the High Court reiterated that the object of the law is to ensure that perpetrators of heinous crimes do not escape punishment due to lack of evidence. The Court also relied on subsequent decisions, including Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161 and Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 1 SCC 10, which affirmed that accomplice testimony, even from someone not formally on trial, may be admissible and considered with caution.
The High Court observed:
“The surmise, which guided the learned NIA Court to reject the application—that the person was not on bail, arrested, or in custody—is contrary to the statutory scheme. The application for grant of pardon could not have been rejected merely due to the legal consequences that may flow from such grant.”
Court’s Decision:
Allowing the appeal, the High Court held that the rejection of the application by the NIA Court was “per se illegal” and passed without proper scrutiny of material facts and legal provisions. The impugned order was accordingly set aside.
The matter was remanded back to the NIA Special Court for fresh consideration of the NIA’s application in light of Section 344 BNSS and the precedent established in State (Through NIA) v. Hidma and Others (CRA No. 754 of 2020).
Case Details:
- Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
- Case Title: Union of India (Through NIA) v. Dinesh Tati
- Case No.: CRA No. 551 of 2025
