JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07-08-2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1327/2025 in Special (N.I.A.) Case No. 02 of 2020 corresponding to RC Case No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158/2019 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum Special Judge, N.I.A. at 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 8:00P.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. 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, charge- sheet 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. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. The appellant has been alleged to be an overground worker of the terrorist organization and he did not have any direct connection with the incident which led to the death of 4 Police personnel. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 06-01-2020 and there is no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future. Mr. Kumar has further submitted that in similar circumstances, co-accused Rajesh Ganju has been granted bail by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 812/2025. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA has submitted that the appellant was an overground worker in the terrorist organization and was a part of the conspiracy which was hatched to eliminate Police personnel. The appellant was actively involved in providing information about the movement of the Police which in fact has been supported by the evidence of protected witness “A”. The allegation against the appellant makes out a prima facie case and, therefore, the bar under Section 43d(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act will get activated and, therefore, the appellant does not deserve the privilege of bail. 6. The role played by the appellant who has been arrayed as (A-4) in the first supplementary charge sheet reads as follows: “ 4) Investigation has established that A-4 was an Over ground worker (OGW) of CPI (Maoist). On 22.11.2019, on the direction of A-1, he was deployed with a member of the Observing Team namely A-20 near pond on Chandwa Road and was instructed to give information about the movement of police personnel to A-1. During the incident, he was present at old crusher on Boda Road. On 22.11.2019, on the direction of A-1, he was deployed with a member of the Observing Team namely A-20 near pond on Chandwa Road and was instructed to give information about the movement of police personnel to A-1. During the incident, he was present at old crusher on Boda Road. Therefore, as per averments made in pre-para, it is established that A-4 was an Over Ground Worker/member of CPI (Maoist), a proscribed organization, and was part of the conspiracy and assisted co-accused to assemble with deadly weapons to carry out terrorist attack on the police patrolling party at Lukuiya More, which resulting in the killing of 04 police personnel and subsequently, snatching/ looting of Government issued arms and ammunition. Thereby, A-4 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.” 7. The predominant ground which has been canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the chance of the trial being concluded in the near future being remote. It appears that initially 146 witnesses were shown in the charge sheet by the prosecuting agency, but subsequently the number of witnesses to be examined have been curtailed to 89, out of whom only 13 have been examined so far. The appellant has remained in custody since 06-01-2020, i.e., almost 6 years. 8. In the case of Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 , it has been held as follows: “ 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 constitute ional 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. 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. 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. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 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 appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the abovestated directions.” 9. The appellant, as per the allegations, was an overground worker of the banned terrorist organization and his role has been restricted to giving information to the other members of the organization about the movement of the Police. There is no allegation that the appellant had participated in the firing at the Police personnel. One of the co-accused Rajesh Ganjhu, who also was an overground worker has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 812/2025 on account of the period of custody undergone by the said appellant and the possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future bleak. Similar is the case of the present appellant to the effect that he has spent about 6 years in custody and 76 witnesses are still to be examined by the prosecution which makes it an impossibility of the trial being concluded any time sooner. 10. Thus, on the basis of the reasonings noted above, we hereby set aside the order dated 07-08-2025 passed in Misc. 10. Thus, on the basis of the reasonings noted above, we hereby set aside the order dated 07-08-2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1327/2025 in Special (N.I.A.) Case No. 02 of 2020 corresponding to RC Case No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158/2019 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum Special Judge, N.I.A. at Ranchi and direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special (N.I.A.) Case No. 02 of 2020 corresponding to RC Case No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.158/2019. 11. This appeal is allowed. 12. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.