The High Court of Chhattisgarh on July 21, 2025, dismissed a criminal appeal seeking bail for three individuals accused of involvement in a fatal IED blast that killed an Indo-Tibetan Border Police (I.T.B.P.) constable. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru upheld a Special NIA Court’s order, ruling that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the appellants were prima facie true, thus invoking the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The appeal was filed by Bhupendra Netam, Mohanlal Yadav, and Lakhanlal Yadav against a January 14, 2025, order by the Special Judge (NIA) in Raipur, which had rejected their bail application.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originates from an incident on November 17, 2023. Following the conclusion of vote casting, I.T.B.P. Constable Jogendra Kumar was returning with security forces when an intentional bomb blast was carried out near Badegobra village in Gariyaband district. Constable Kumar sustained grievous injuries in the blast and subsequently died.
A criminal case was registered at Police Station Mainpur under multiple provisions, including Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 121, and 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; and Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39, and 40 of the UAPA. The appellants were arrested on June 14, 2024.
Arguments of the Appellants
Appearing for the appellants, Advocate Ravipal Maheshwari argued that his clients were innocent villagers with no connection to the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated on mere suspicion. He submitted that no incriminating material was recovered from their possession, stating that items like Rapa, Gaiti, and Sabbal (agricultural tools) seized by the police are commonly found in rural households and cannot be considered evidence of involvement.
The counsel contended that the arrest was arbitrary and violated constitutional safeguards under Article 22. He emphasized that there was no direct evidence, no mention of the appellants in the FIR, and no eyewitness accounts linking them to the crime. It was further argued that the seizure of articles after an “inordinate delay of eight months is highly suspicious” and that there was no credible evidence of their association with the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. The appellants, described as the sole breadwinners for their families, undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial.
Arguments of the Respondent (NIA)
Opposing the bail plea, Advocate B. Gopa Kumar, representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA), described the IED blast as a “heinous and grave act of terrorism” executed by the CPI (Maoist). He submitted that the appellants were Over Ground Workers (OGWs) who played a significant role in providing “logistics, materials, and support for the said terrorist act.”
The NIA’s counsel argued that the charge sheet established the appellants’ involvement in a larger conspiracy to wage war against the State. He stated that recoveries, including detonators, wires, and switches, were made pursuant to disclosures under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further noted that witness statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code corroborated the appellants’ participation in conspiracy meetings and their role in aiding Maoist cadres. Citing Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, he argued that bail is barred where a prima facie case is established and that the Special Court had rightly rejected the application.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court centered its analysis on the stringent conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The provision states that an accused person shall not be released on bail if the court, after 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 observed, “The legislative intent is clear: in cases involving terrorism-related offences, the threshold for bail is significantly heightened in comparison to ordinary criminal cases.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the Court noted that at the bail stage, it 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 investigation materials, the Court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to meet this standard. The judgment reads: “this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has placed sufficient material on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the appellants in the larger conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities, including the IED blast which resulted in the death of a security personnel.”
The Court specifically highlighted the evidence related to the appellants’ “association with the proscribed terrorist organization CPI (Maoist), their alleged role in providing logistics, materials such as detonators, wires, and other support essential for the execution of the offence, along with their participation in conspiracy meetings.”
Concluding that the statutory bar under UAPA was applicable, the Court stated, “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 Special NIA Court’s order, the High Court dismissed the appeal. However, it directed the trial court to “make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months,” provided the appellants cooperate with the proceedings.
