Facts
The Appellants challenged the order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Dantewada, which rejected their regular bail application.
Source reference: p. 1-2The prosecution alleged that on 28.06.2022, two unidentified individuals abducted the complainant’s husband, who was later found dead via strangulation near a forest.
Source reference: p. 2A Naxali pamphlet was found near the body claiming the victim was killed as punishment by the National Park Area Committee of the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
Source reference: p. 2The Appellants were arrested on 14.05.2024.
Source reference: p. 2They contended they were innocent farmers/laborers, citing PM KISAN and MGNREGA records as proof of their presence at home during the period of the incident, and noted discrepancies in the trial court's witness list.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the Appellants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. (Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) given their period of incarceration and alleged lack of evidence.
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 4-52. Whether there exists a prima facie case against the Appellants regarding their involvement in Naxal-related violence and murder.
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 7Law Applied
The Court applied Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, governing appeals against bail orders.
Source reference: p. 1Substantive charges were considered under Sections 302 (Murder), 364 (Abduction for murder), and 449 (House-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Sections 13(1), 38(2), and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which impose stringent limitations on bail.
Source reference: p. 2The Court also referenced Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The Court balanced the Appellants' defense—based on their occupation, financial records, and alleged witness discrepancies—against the gravity of the State's allegations.
Source reference: p. 4It observed that while the Appellants raised concerns regarding the consistency of the prosecution’s witnesses (only two out of seven being listed in the charge sheet), the prima facie case established through witness statements remained significant.
Source reference: p. 4The Court determined that the nature of the offences—linked to Naxalite activities and murder—was sufficiently grave to outweigh the two-year period of incarceration.
Source reference: p. 4-5The Court reasoned that the risk of the Appellants tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, given the severe nature of the charges, necessitated continued custody.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the gravity of the charges and the existence of a prima facie case disentitled the Appellants to relief.
The High Court affirmed the Special Court’s decision, ruling that two years in jail is insufficient to justify bail in cases involving severe offences under the IPC and UAPA. The appeal was dismissed.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
RAJU MUDMAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in