IMPORTANT POINT
Subsequent developments also need to be considered.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 12th September, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras granting bail in default to the accused respondent after setting aside the order dated 12th December, 2017 and 18th January, 2018 passed by the Special Court (under National Investigation Agency Act, 2008), Chennai holding that the detention of the accused/respondent for a further period of 90 days was not in compliance of Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967(hereinafter being referred to as (“UAP Act, 1967”)

3. The facts giving rise to these appeals insofar as they are relevant for disposal are that as per the case of the prosecution, nine named persons including the accused respondent were involved in a criminal conspiracy and they formed a terrorist gang, raised funds and trained some personnel and facilitated their travel from India to Syria to join the Daesh or the socalled ISIS. The National Investigating Agency, New Delhi registered a case no. R.C. No. 03/2017/NIA/DLI on 26th January, 2017 under Sections 120B IPC and Sections 17,18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the UAP Act, 1967 against nine accused persons including the accused respondent(A-3).

4. An allegation against accused respondent(A-3) was that he was a radicalized youth from Chennai who, consequent to the criminal conspiracy had attempted to join ISIS/Daesh in Syria. However, he was intercepted by the Turkish authorities while attempting to cross over to Syria and deported to India from Turkey on 29th August, 2015. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18th September, 2017 as he is alleged to be one of the conspirators.

5. As per his date of arrest, 90 days prior thereto was to expire on 16th December, 2017. On 11th December, 2017, the Special Public Prosecutor filed a report before the Special Court, assigning specific reasons, praying for the extension of judicial detention of the accused respondent for a further period of 90 days to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation. The written objections were filed by the accused respondent on 11th December, 2017. The Special Court, after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent accused who appeared through his counsel and taking note of the written submissions opposing the request made by the Special Public Prosecutor for judicial detention for a further period of 90 days as prayed for, after recording its satisfaction on the specific reasons assigned by the Special Public Prosecutor, granted judicial detention for a further period of 90 days under Sections 43D(2)(b) of the UAP Act, 1967 vide its order dated 12th December, 2017.

6. At the same time, application filed by the accused respondent for bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 43D of the UAP Act, 1967 was dismissed vide Order dated 18th January, 2018 having become infructuous.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 12th December, 2017 & 18th January, 2018, the accused respondent(A-3) filed appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 before the High Court. The High Court of Madras, on appraisal of the record, arrived at the conclusion that the specific reasons which have been assigned by the Special Public Prosecutor in his report seeking extension of time does not meet the requirement of law as contemplated under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAP Act, 1967 and accordingly set aside the order of the Special Court dated 12th December, 2017 and 18th January, 2018 and in consequence thereof, granted statutory bail in default to the respondent accused under its Order dated 12th September, 2018 which is a subject matter of challenge in appeals before us.

8. As informed to this Court, that (A-1) Haja Fakkurudeen has been absconding but charge-sheet has been filed against all the accused persons and Khaja Moideen @ Abdullah Muthalif(A-2) was arrested on 15th Septemb