JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by accused No.5 challenging the order dated 3rd day of December 2018 passed in Special C.C. No.181/2017 on the file of 49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA cases) at Bengaluru rejecting the bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and to release him on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on the complaint of one Sri Jayaram, a case was registered at the first instance against two unknown persons for having committed the brutal murder of one Rudresh on 16.10.2016 near Srinivasa Medical Store, Shivajinagar. Later, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 to 4 conspiring with accused No.5 came on two motor bikes, accused No.2 being the pillion rider of Pulsar Motor bike hacked Rudresh with a sharp lethal Machate on right side of the neck and fled away. As a result, Rudresh succumbed to injuries. Subsequently, on 27.10.2016, accused Nos.1 to 4 have been arrested. At the first instance, Crime No.124 of 2016 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). Based on the statement of accused No.4, this appellant, who is accused No.5, was arrested on 02.11.2016. The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security-I Division, North Block, New Delhi, in their order No.1101/33/2016ISIV dated 07.12.2016 entrusted the investigation to the National Investigation Agency (for short, ‘the NIA’) as per the power conferred under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the NIA., Hyderabad branch, has registered the case in R.C.04/16NIAHYDERABAD under Sections 120B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and under Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UAP Act’, for brevity). The NIA after conducting the investigation, filed the chargesheet for the above offences citing 117 witnesses and produced 90 documents.

3. The appellant/accused filed an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) before the Court below contending that: he was in custody from the date of his arrest; he had no criminal antecedents; he being innocent has been unlawfully implicated based on certain phone calls and he is ready to obey the conditions that would be imposed on his release. The Court below after giving an opportunity to the State, heard the matter and rejected the said application. Hence, he has filed this appeal seeking bail.

4. In the appeal memorandum, it is stated that the Court below has failed to take note of the fact that out of 90 voluminous documents produced by the prosecution, except document Nos.13, 25, 30, 31, 37, 70, 77, 79, 80 and 81, there is no material evidence against the appellant. The prosecution relied upon the disclosure statement of the appellant and 10 documents/objects i.e., Xolo mobile phone, Haier mobile phone, HDFC., bank pass book, HDFC., bank cheque book, Allahabad bank pass book, telephone index diary, which were recovered and subject to PF No.105 of 2016 on 04.11.2016. Even though the prosecution relied upon those documents, it failed to connect the appellant with the offences alleged against him. The disclosure statement of accused Nos.1 to 4 also does not connect the appellant with the offences alleged against him. The prosecution has relied upon document No.31 in order to connect this appellant to the allegation of conspiracy and place of conspiracy, which is pointed out by accused Nos.1 to 4, wherein mahazar was drawn and attested by C.Ws.48 and 49. Document No.37 is the seizure mahazar dated 12.12.2016 under which one SDPI banner showing the photos of all the accused and subject to P.F. No.114/2016.

5. Learned counsel app