Rajesh Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2696 Chatt

                                   1

                                                                  NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                    Criminal Appeal No.500 of 2022

  1. Rajesh Nayak S/o Soniya Nayak, aged about 35 years;
  2. Kailash Nayak S/o Soniya Nayak, aged about 30 years;
  3. Ankesh Rathore S/o. Late Mohan Rathore, aged about 33 years;
     All are resident of Village Pinkonda, P.S. Mirtur, District Bijapur
     (CG)
                                                         ---- Appellants
                                                                (In Jail)
                               Versus

     State of Chhattisgarh Through the Police Station Mirtur, District
     Bijapur (CG)
                                                       ---- Respondent

For Appellants:             Mr.P.K.Tulsyan, Advocate
For Respondent/State:       Mr.Sunil Otwani, Addl.A.G.

             Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
                     Hon'ble Smt.Rajani Dubey

                         Judgment on Board
                            (26.4.2022)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants herein under

Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is

directed against the order dated 10.3.2022 passed by the

Special Judge (NIA Act), Revenue District Sukma and Bijapur,

Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, by which the appellants' application

for grant of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC has been

rejected.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.8.2021 at 9 p.m.

the appellants along with other co-accused entered into the

house of complainant Faguram Mandavi armed with gun,

bow-arrow and axe, they abused the complainant and his son

Mahesh Mandavi and assaulted Bablu Mandavi and set fire to

tractor parked outside of their house and thereby committed the

aforesaid offences.

3. Mr.P.K.Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would submit that the Special Court is absolutely unjustified in

rejecting the application by not appreciating the fact that the

appellants are not involved in offence in question and they have

falsely been implicated, they have not entered into the house of

complainant Faguram Mandavi. They are in jail since 17.8.2021.

As such, it is a fit case where the order impugned deserves to be

set aside and the appellants be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the respondent/State relying upon the

statements of injured witness Bablu Mandavi, Umesh Mandavi

and Anita Nayak, would submit that sufficient evidence is

available on record to hold that the appellants are giving support

to terrorist organization i.e. BHAKAPA MAOIST and as such, the

trial Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application for

grant of bail.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also

went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Taking into consideration the statements of injured witness

Bablu Mandavi, Umesh Mandavi and Anita Nayak and other

material available on record, we are of the considered opinion

that the Special Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the

application under Section 439 of the CrPC. We do not find any

illegality or perversity in the order impugned.

7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal deserves to be and is hereby

dismissed.

                Sd/-                                      Sd/-

          (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                        (Rajani Dubey)
              Judge                                       Judge
B/-