Absence of Incriminating Material and Advanced Prosecution Stage Warrant Bail Despite UAPA Charges

The appellant was arrested on 10.08.2024 following a police search at the house of co-accused Surajuram Tekam, which unearthed Naxalite literature and explosive materials

Investigating authorities alleged that the appellant assisted by providing funding and extorting money from a Tendu Patta Contractor

Although initially charged under various sections of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, and UAPA, the appellant was partially discharged from most counts, currently facing trial only under Section 386 IPC and Section 40 of the UAPA

This appeal challenges the order dated 02.01.2026 by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Rajnandgaon, which rejected the appellant’s third bail application

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and the fact that 30 out of 33 prosecution witnesses allegedly did not depose against him.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of bail when the trial has reached its final stage.

The Court considered Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which governs appeals against interlocutory orders of a Special Court regarding bail

Substantively, the court evaluated the case under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt) and Section 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (offence of raising funds for a terrorist organization)

The court also applied the principle that the stage of the trial—specifically its proximity to completion—is a critical factor in determining the necessity of judicial interference in bail matters

The Court analyzed the progress of the trial and the nature of the evidence.

It noted that 32 out of the total witnesses in "List A," including the Investigating Officer, had already been examined, and two were abandoned

The appellant argued for parity with co-accused Vivek Singh and highlighted his lack of criminal history and his professional background as a "Master Trainer"

However, the State emphasized the seriousness of the Naxal-related funding allegations and the fact that a previous appeal (Cr.A. No. 2261/2024) had been dismissed on 14.01.2025

The Court reasoned that because the trial had progressed substantially and was at the "verge of completion," the interest of justice was better served by allowing the trial court to conclude the proceedings rather than granting bail at this late stage

The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.01.2026

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to be informed of the order for necessary action