“Mere Prolonged Detention Cannot Outweigh Allegations Of Terrorism”: Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses Bail In NIA Case Involving IED Blast

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “Mere prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the serious and grave nature of allegations involving offences against national security.”

The Court added, “In view of the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court cannot lightly disregard the materials placed on record which, at this stage, establish a prima facie case against the appellants.”

Advocate Ravipal Maheshwari appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate B. Gopa Kumar represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Appellants had filed a criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order of the Special NIA Court rejecting their application for bail. The prosecution alleged that following the conclusion of voting in the region, an IED blast was carried out targeting security personnel. The blast resulted in the death of an ITBP constable.

Based on investigation and material recovered, including explosive components and witness statements under Section 164 CrPC, the Appellants were charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and UAPA.

The Appellants contended that they were innocent villagers falsely implicated without credible evidence. It was argued that the items recovered were ordinary tools and the alleged seizures took place after an unexplained delay. Further, they contended that there was no direct evidence, no mention of their names in the FIR, and no eyewitness account linking them to the crime. They also raised procedural violations in arrest and production, and argued that their continued detention was causing hardship to their families.

The NIA opposed the appeal, asserting that the case concerned a grave act of terrorism involving banned outfit CPI (Maoist). It was submitted that the appellants were Over Ground Workers who had supported the execution of the attack, and their involvement was evident from recoveries, protected witness statements, and other materials. The NIA contended that the embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied and that the Special Court had correctly rejected the bail plea.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court examined the legal standard under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and referred to the statutory language, stating, “The section mandates that unless the Court, upon perusal of the case diary or charge-sheet, is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true, bail cannot be granted. Conversely, where there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true, the bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies.”

The Bench observed that courts are required to adopt a stricter approach in cases involving terrorism. It referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), where it was held that at the stage of bail under UAPA, the court must not conduct a roving inquiry into the merits but only assess whether the allegations are supported prima facie by materials on record.

Referring to the record, the Court noted, “The prosecution has placed sufficient material on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the appellants in the larger conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities, including the IED blast which resulted in the death of a security personnel.”

The Bench observed, “The appellants’ association with the proscribed terrorist organization CPI (Maoist), their alleged role in providing logistics, materials such as detonators, wires, and other support essential for the execution of the offence… has been substantiated through statements of protected witnesses, recoveries made pursuant to their disclosures, and other documentary evidence.”

Rejecting the argument based on socio-economic hardship, the Court said that mere prolonged detention could not outweigh the serious and grave nature of allegations involving offences against national security.

Taking note of the statutory bar under UAPA applied in the case, the Bench upheld the Special Court’s refusal to grant bail and dismissed the appeal. However, it directed the Trial Court to endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

Cause Title: Bhupendra Netam @ Bhupendar Dhruw & Ors. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:34404-DB)