ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the National Investigating Agency. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.05.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 727 of 2025, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 02/2020 arising out of NIA Case No. RC 25/2020/NIA/DLI (Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158/2019) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. The prosecution case is that on 22.11.2019 at 8:00 P.M., a patrolling party of Chandwa Police Station in course of patrolling duty stopped at Lukuiya More at Chandwa. It has been alleged that the cadre of banned terrorist organization i.e. CPI (Maoist) who were waiting in advance, fired indiscriminately at the police patrolling party which led to the death of 4 police personnel. Arms and ammunitions were also looted from the martyred police personnel and by raising slogans, the Maoists fled away. Later on, one of the Home Guard namely, Dinesh Ram who had escaped unhurt, rushed to the Chandwa Police Station and lodged a complaint. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 was instituted against 18 named and some unknown accused persons. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Baijnath Ganjhu, Sunil Ganjhu @ Mangra, Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu, Sanjay Ganjhu, Naresh Ganjhu and Faguna Ganjhu. The Central Government in exercise of its power conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 vide M.H.A. New Delhi, CTCR Division Order no. 11011/42/2020/NIA dated 22.06.2020 directed the NIA to take up the investigation and accordingly, Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 was re-registered as R.C. No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353 & 379 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, under Section 17 (i) & (ii) of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 10, 13, 17 and 18 of Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967. The NIA had submitted the first supplementary charge-sheet against 34 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 121, 121 (A), 122, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 353, 395, 396 & 427 of Indian Penal Code, under Sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 38, 39 & 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Sections 25 (1-b) a, 26, 27 & 35 of the Arms Act. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated primarily on account of the fact that he was an overground worker of the terrorist organisation and had given logistic support to the members of the said organisation. Learned counsel adds that admittedly, the appellant had not taken part in the indiscriminate firing made by the CPI maoist which resulted in the death of four police personnel. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 14.01.2020 and one of the co-accused whose allegations are similar to that of the present appellant, Rajesh Ganjhu @ Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 812 of 2025. Mr. Birendra Kumar has further referred to Paragraph- 17.24 of the Supplementary Charge Sheet wherein the role and activities of the appellant has been depicted in a concised form which categorically reveals that only logistic support was given to the other extremists by the present appellant. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the N.I.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the case of the present appellant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Rajesh Ganjhu @ Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu, who has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Mr. Das in such context has referred to Paragraph-17.19 of the 1st Supplementary Charge Sheet submitted by the NIA, wherein it has been depicted that one of the witnesses Vikash Ganjhu in presence of the witnesses had identified the photograph of the present appellant of being present near the old crusher at Lukaiya village before the incident. This was not the case with respect to Rajesh Ganjhu as his identification was not ascertained by any of the witnesses. Mr. This was not the case with respect to Rajesh Ganjhu as his identification was not ascertained by any of the witnesses. Mr. Das has further submitted that the appellant was informed by A-14 that an attack on the police party would be carried out at Lukaiya More and for logistic support an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was also provided to the present appellant. This would indicate that the appellant was actively conspiring with the other members of the terrorist organisation in carrying out a dastardly attack upon the police party near Lukaiya More. The protected witnesses have also ascertained the role played by the appellant. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the affidavits on record including the 1st Supplementary Charge Sheet submitted by the NIA. 8. The appellant has been arrayed as A-1 in the 1st Supplementary Charge Sheet submitted by the NIA and specific role essayed by the appellant in the entire episode has been depicted in Paragraph-17.24 of the said charge sheet which reads as follows:- 17.24: Role and offences established against accused persons :- Investigation has established that (A-1) was an Over Ground Worker (OGW) of CPI (Maoist) and used to provide logistic support to Ravindra Ganjhu & Mukesh Ganjhu @ Surendra Ganjhu (A-14), RCM of CPI (Maoist). On 20.11.2019, he, along with A-2 & Kunwar Ganjhu, went to Beerjangha forest in a Motor Cycle of Basant Turi and met A-14. On 21.11.2019, he again went to Beerjangha forest and received Rs. 3000 from A-14. He, along with one Naxal namely A-23, went to Chandwa market and purchased 02 blankets and sweets/Laddu and Samosa and delivered to A-14. He again received rupees 10,000 from A-14 to purchase Jackets, Jeans, Shirts and towels (Gamchha). On 22.11.2019, he went to Chandwa and purchased 3 Jackets, 01 pair of Pant & Shirt and 03 towels (Gamchcha) and went to Beerjangha forest in the motor cycle of A-2, and delivered the items to A-14. He, along with A-2, attended the briefing of A-14 who told about their plan to ambush Police Patrolling Party at Lukuiya More and A-14 introduced them with 03 other Maoists and told that they will go to Lukuiya More, in advance, for recce and observation. He, along with A-2, attended the briefing of A-14 who told about their plan to ambush Police Patrolling Party at Lukuiya More and A-14 introduced them with 03 other Maoists and told that they will go to Lukuiya More, in advance, for recce and observation. A-14 also told them to arrange 2- 3 Motor cycles for transporting Macist cadres from Beerjangha to the place of incident and also for two-three local persons for supporting their Observing Team. Thereafter, as per plan, A-1, along with A-2, arranged one motorcycle and two local persons namely A-4 and A-6 to assist the observing team. A-1 received the observing team viz. A-7. A-20 and A-21, and assisted in their deployment, along with A-4 and A-6, to three different places to watch the movement of the security forces. Also, A-1, transported the Attacking Team of CPI (Maoist) namely A-7, A-20, A-21 from Beerjangha to Lukuiva More in motorcycle belonging to Basant Turi. After the incident, A-1, along with A-2 & A-6, assisted and helped the Attacking and Observing Team of CPI (Maoist) to reach Boda Pond. A-14 was present there, along with the other cadres of CPI (Maoist), and gave Rs 5000/- each to A-1, A-2 & A-6 as reward. Later, looted ammunitions (40 live rounds of 7.62 mm calliber), bandolier and charger were recovered from his house, at his instance. Therefore, as per averments made in pre-para, it is established that A- 1, was an Over Ground Worker/member of CPI (Maoist), a prescribed organization, and participated in the meeting in which conspiracy was hatched among co-accused, with common intention, and assisted co-accused to assemble with deadly weapons and to carry out terrorist attack on the police patrolling party which resulted in the killing of 04 police personnel and subsequently, snatching/ looting of Government issued arms and ammunition at Lukuiya More. Thereby, A-1 committed offences under sections 120B r/w 121, 121A, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 353, 395, 396, 427 of IPC, sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, as amended 2019, sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of Arms Act, 1959. 9. Thereby, A-1 committed offences under sections 120B r/w 121, 121A, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 353, 395, 396, 427 of IPC, sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, as amended 2019, sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of Arms Act, 1959. 9. A perusal of the role and activity of the appellant as revealed above does not point to the fact that the appellant was directly involved and had participated in the indiscriminate firing made by the extremists upon the police party near Lukaiya More which resulted in the death of four police personnel. In fact it clearly reveals that the appellant was involved in giving logistic support to the terrorist organisation which is similar to that of the co-accused Rajesh Ganjhu who has already been granted bail as noted above. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly relied upon the fact that the appellant is in custody since 14.01.2020 and there is a remote possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In the context of the above we may refer to the case of “Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb” reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 and the relevant reads as under: “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. 18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. 18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent’s prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected. 19. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the respondent on bail is that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such precondition under UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc. Conclusion 20. In light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, we feel that besides the conditions to be imposed by the trial court while releasing the respondent, it would serve the best interest of justice and the society at large to impose some additional conditions that the respondent shall mark his presence every week on Monday at 10 a.m. at the local police station and inform in writing that he is not involved in any other new crime. The respondent shall also refrain from participating in any activity which might enrage communal sentiments. In case the respondent is found to have violated any of his bail conditions or attempted to have tampered the evidence, influence witnesses, or hamper the trial in any other way, then the Special Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail forthwith. The respondent shall also refrain from participating in any activity which might enrage communal sentiments. In case the respondent is found to have violated any of his bail conditions or attempted to have tampered the evidence, influence witnesses, or hamper the trial in any other way, then the Special Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail forthwith. The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the abovestated directions.” 11. It appears that till date only 13 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and there are several witnesses who are yet to be examined. From the order dated 30.10.202025 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 812 of 2025 it appears that the prosecuting agency has curtained down the number of witnesses to be examined to 89. Despite the curtailment of the number of the number of witnesses to be examined, the chances of the trial being concluded in the near future appears to be bleak. The appellant as we have noticed above has remained in custody for almost six years. In similar circumstances one of the co-accused Rajesh Ganjhu @ Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 812 of 2025. 12. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to allow this appeal. Consequently, the order dated 22.05.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 727 of 2025, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 02/2020 arising out of NIA Case No. RC 25/2020/NIA/DLI (Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158/2019) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi is set aside and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court [Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar] in connection with S. T. No. 264 of 2022, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial. 13. This appeal is allowed.