The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a criminal appeal for bail filed by a man accused of involvement in a fatal IED blast targeting security personnel. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru upheld the order of the Special/Sessions Judge, Raipur, finding that the material on record established a prima facie case against the appellant, thereby invoking the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The Court held that in cases involving grave allegations of terrorism and offences against national security, claims of prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot be grounds for granting bail when the accusations are prima facie true.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case originates from an incident on November 17, 2023. At approximately 3:40 PM, after the conclusion of polling duties, a security force team was returning when an IED blast was intentionally detonated near Badegobra. The blast was carried out with the intent to kill, and it resulted in the death of I.T.B.P. Constable Jogendra Kumar, who sustained grievous injuries.
Following a complaint, a criminal case was registered at Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband. The appellant, Dhanesh Ram Dhruv @ Guruji, along with other accused persons, was charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 121, and 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39, and 40 of the UAPA; Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant’s bail application was rejected by the Special/Sessions Judge, Raipur, on February 21, 2025, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.
Submissions of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Jitendra Shukla, argued that his client is an innocent Headmaster who has been falsely implicated merely on suspicion. He contended that there was no cogent or credible evidence connecting the appellant to the incident and that no incriminating material was recovered from his possession, save for a booklet and a pamphlet related to COVID-19. It was further submitted that the appellant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his prolonged incarceration was causing them irreparable hardship.
Counsel for the Respondent/NIA, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, vehemently opposed the bail plea. He submitted that the investigation revealed the appellant’s active participation and involvement in Naxal operations. The case, he argued, stems from a “heinous and grave act of terrorism” executed by the banned terrorist organization CPI (Maoist). The NIA’s counsel asserted that the appellant played a significant role in providing logistics, materials, and support for the terrorist act and was associated with other accused Maoists. The prosecution’s case was supported by statements from eight witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., who deposed about the appellant’s involvement with CPI (Maoist) cadres, including attending meetings and providing logistic and financial support.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously examined the statutory framework, particularly Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which places a specific embargo on granting bail to an accused charged under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. The provision states that an accused shall not be released on bail if the Court, upon perusing the case diary or charge-sheet, “is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”
The Bench, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, reiterated that at the bail stage, the court must not conduct a roving inquiry but only ascertain whether the accusations are prima facie supported by the materials on record.
Upon reviewing the charge-sheet and the material collected during the investigation, the Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully presented a prima facie case. The judgment notes:
“Upon a careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the charge-sheet and material collected during investigation, as well as the nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has placed sufficient material on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the appellant in the larger conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities, including the IED blast which resulted in the death of a security personnel.”
The Court observed that the appellant’s alleged association with the proscribed CPI (Maoist), his role in providing logistical support, and his participation in conspiracy meetings were substantiated by witness statements and documentary evidence.
Decision of the Court
In light of its findings, the High Court held that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was applicable. The Court stated:
“In view of the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court cannot lightly disregard the materials placed on record which, at this stage, establish a prima facie case against the appellant. Mere prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the serious and grave nature of allegations involving offences against national security.”
Finding no “infirmity, perversity, or illegality” in the order passed by the Special Court, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal. However, it directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months, provided the appellant cooperates.
