Bail denied in IED blast case due to alleged Naxalite involvement and threats to national security.

On December 12, 2023, Kunjam Joga, a CRPF personnel, sustained grievous injuries to both legs when he stepped on a pressure IED allegedly planted by unknown Naxalites near Team Morcha No. 02 in District Sukma.

Following an investigation into Crime No. 07/2023, the five applicants were arrested on April 6, 2024, and charged with attempted murder and possession of explosives.

The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail, contending they were falsely implicated based on mere suspicion and memorandum statements, had no explosive materials in their possession, and that 10 out of 15 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, some of whom did not support the state's case.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations and their period of incarceration.

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) regarding attempt to murder and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The court balanced the liberty of the accused against the gravity of the offence, the impact on public safety, and the involvement in activities prejudicial to national security.

The Court evaluated the merits of the bail application by weighing the severity of the injuries sustained by the CRPF personnel—life-threatening wounds from heel to knee—against the applicants' claims of innocence.

Although the applicants argued that the trial was progressing and witnesses were turning hostile, the Court emphasized the "brutal and dangerous nature" of planting IEDs in the context of Naxalite activities.

The Court found that the material collected during the investigation and presented in the charge-sheet prima facie indicated the applicants' involvement.

The Court reasoned that the nexus between the alleged acts and threats to national security outweighed the factors favoring bail at this stage.

The High Court held that given the gravity of the offence and its impact on public safety and national security, it was not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail.

The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.