Idris @ Ibbu Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:12986-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.03.19 17:42:42 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

CRA No. 335 of 2025

¶7

Idris @ Ibbu Khan S/o Khalil Khan Aged About 27 Years R/o Near P.G. College Adarsh Nagar Ward No. 5 Kawardha Police Station Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

(Cause-title ta	ken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Ali Afjal Mirza, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶14

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

19.03.2025

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Ali Afjal Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

¶17

2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed

¶18

2

¶19

against the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Bail Application No.36/2025, arising out of Crime No.52/2024 registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh seeking bail for offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) as well as Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been rejected finding no merit.

¶20

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.01.2024 at about 7:00 AM, the dead body of the deceased Sadhuram Yadav was found on the access way of the field near Nursery at village Lalpurkala. The cut injury on his neck was seen and then the brother of the deceased Siddhram Yadav lodged the report to the Police. During the investigation, the appellant along with the other co-accused persons have been arrested the present appellant is arrested on 24.01.2024. During the investigation it was found that certain objectionable chats have been exchanged by the accused persons and the video relating to the terrorist activities has also been exchanged which was in Kashmiri language and considering the evidence collected during the investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge (NIA), in which the trial of the case is pending.

¶21

4. The appellant has preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS before the Special Judge (NIA), Rajnandgaon, District

¶22

3

¶23

Rajnandgaon, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 28.01.2025, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant.

¶24

5. Mr. Ali Afjal Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant has been arrested just to harass them for unnecessary trial and criminal prosecution. He further submits that there is no evidence against the present appellant in the charge-sheet except of his memorandum statement, no seizure of any incriminating article have been made from the present appellant. The objectionable photographs and chat messages are extracted from the damaged mobile phone and the present appellant is nowhere connected from the said piece of evidence. No blood was found on the rosary of the deceased nor the alleged cutter, alleged objectionable chats was neither extracted from the mobile phone of the appellant nor he is having any connection with the same. The main allegation of commission of offence is against one Ayaz Khan and since the present appellant is also belongs to the same community, he has been implicated in the offence. The prosecution has trying to connect with the main accused Ayaz Khan through mobile call detail which itself is not sufficient to connect the present appellant for the offence in question. It has been contended that other coaccused persons, namely Abdul Mehtab @ Mattu Khan and Sufiyan Quraishi have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.01.2025 and 03.03.2025 passed in CRA No.1719/2024

¶25

4

¶26

and CRA No.267/2025, respectively, as such, present case is similar to that of the cases of Abdul Mehtab @ Mattu and Sufiyan Quraishi. The appellant is in jail since 21.01.2024, and trial of the case will take its own time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶27

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the NIA/respondent vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that there is clear evidence regarding the involvement of the present appellant in the alleged offence. He further submits that the accused persons have conspired together and committed murder of the deceased Sadhram Yadav from the mobile phones of the accused persons certain objectionable video have been found which relates to the terrorist activities and looking to the seriousness of the offence, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶28

7. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶29

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly nature of allegation, material collected during the investigation against the present appellant, the main allegation against the coaccused Ayaz Khan who has amputed the head of the deceased and it is further argued that so far as the applicant is concerned,

¶30

5

¶31

his case is identical to that of the accused Abdul Mehtab @ Mattu Khan and Sufiyan Quraishi, who have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.01.2025 and 03.03.2025 passed in CRA No.1719/2024 and CRA No.267/2025, respectively, as well as further considering that no any incriminating articles have been seized from the present appellant and also that he is in jail since 21.01.2024 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant dated 28.01.2025 is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed .

¶32

9. Let the appellant- Idris @ Ibbu Khan involved in Crime No.52/2024 registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh seeking bail for offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 of the IPC as well as Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, shall be released on bail on his executing bail bond to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with two local sureties, on following conditions :-

¶33

(i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;

¶34

(ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;

¶35

6

¶36

(iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial; and,

¶37

(iv) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶38

10. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and if he fails to appear or take unnecessary adjournment, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds and take him in custody.

¶39

11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶40

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶41

Anu

Idris @ Ibbu Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idris @ Ibbu Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jainarayan Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Subal Kumar Choudhary @ Subi Babu

Dilip Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Yadav Urf Arvind Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Anchal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh