[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Kadti vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11397-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 426 of 2026
Rajendra Kumar Kadti S/o Bugur Kadti Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Degmeta, Police Station Mirtur, District Bijapur C.G.
... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Sub-Divisional Officer Police, Police Station
Madanwada, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh-Chowki C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Nihal Kashyap and Mr. Yuvraj Singh,
Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
10/03/2026
1. Heard Mr. Nihal Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent.
2. Challenge in this appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008 (for short, the NIA Act) is to the order dated
02.01.2026 passed in Special Case NIA No. 29/2024 by the learned
Special Judge (NIA Act), Rajnandgaon, by which the learned Special
Judge has rejected the application filed by the appellant for his release
on bail, who was arrested on 10.08.2024 in connection with Crime No.
3/2024 registered at Police Station, Madanwada, District Mohla-Manpur-
Ambagarh Chowki, for the offences under Section 386 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, the IPC), Section 40 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, the UAPA) .
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.04.2024, a search
was conducted at the house of one accused Surajuram Tekam in Village
Kalvar, Police Station Madanwada. During the search, the following
items were recovered from his possession: Naxalite literature, one bundle
of cordex wire used in explosions, six detonators, explosive powder
wrapped in a white membrane, a 12-volt black battery of Amaron
company, twenty 9-volt batteries, a multimeter, and two brown colored
tapes. During the investigation it was found that the other accused
persons, including the appellant/accused Rajendra Kumar Kadti, had
assisted him by providing funding. The allegation against the appellant is
that he extorted money from a Tendu Patta Contractor.
4. Mr. Nihal Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
third bail application of the appellant was rejected vide the impugned
order dated 02.01.2026, which is under challenge in this appeal. He
submits that there are total 33 prosecution witnesses out of which 30
witnesses have been examined but none of them have deposed against
the appellant in any manner. There is no evidence of any extortion by the
appellant. The appellant is in jail since 10.08.2024. One of the co-
accused Vivek Singh was granted bail by this Hon'ble Court in Cr.A. No.
1898/2024 on 14.01.2025 and as such, on the ground of parity, the
appellant may also be released on bail. The appellant worked with
foundation for Ecological Security and was appointed as Master Trainer
under the Forest rights Act and PESA by Collector, Bijapur. He has no
criminal history and there is no likelihood of his absconding as he has
deep societal roots. Hence, he prays that the appellant may be released
on bail. Mr. Kashyap further submits that initially, the appellant was
initially charged for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, Section 8(3) and 8(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh
Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2) and 39(1)
(2) of the UAPA and Section 384 and 386 of the IPC, but he was partially
discharged from all offences except Section 386 of the IPC and 40 of the
UAPA.
5. On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 19.02.2026, this Court had directed
the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, to ensure presence of the
prosecution witnesses who were stated to be police personnel and were
not appearing before the learned trial Court inspite of repeated summons
being issued against them. The Director General of Police was further
directed to file his personal affidavit stating whether the remaining
prosecution witnesses had appeared before the trial Court or not and the
matter was directed to be listed today.
6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the State/respondent submits that the Director General of
Police, Chhattisgarh, has filed his affidavit on 05.03.2026 and from
perusal of the same, it transpires that till date, total 32 witnesses have
been examined and two of the witnesses have been given up by the
prosecution. Mr. Baghel further submits that the Investigating Officer has
also been examined. He further submits that there are total 32
prosecution witnesses in List A and 19 in List B. The witnesses
mentioned in List B would be called by the learned trial Court, if so
required. Mr. Baghel further submits that the allegations against the
appellant are serious in nature and as such, this appeal deserves to be
rejected and no interference is warranted with the order passed by the
learned trial Judge. Mr. Baghel further submits that the appellant had
preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr.A. No. 2261/2024, which
also stood dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2025.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal
of the material available on record, particularly the affidavit filed by the
Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, this Court finds that the
prosecution has already examined 32 witnesses. It is further evident that
two witnesses have been given up by the prosecution and the witnesses
mentioned in List A, including the Investigating Officer, have already been
examined before the learned trial Court. Thus, the evidence of all material
witnesses has already been recorded and the trial has reached the final
stage. This Court also takes note of the fact that the learned trial Court
has already made substantial progress in the trial and only a limited
stage of the proceedings remains to be completed. In the present case,
having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the stage at
which the trial presently stands, this Court is of the considered view that
no useful purpose would be served by entertaining the present appeal.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering that the trial has
already progressed substantially and is at the verge of completion, we
are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.01.2026
passed in Special Case NIA No. 29/2024 by the learned Special Judge
(NIA Act), Rajnandgaon.
9. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forthwith, for
information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Manpreet / Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
