Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points extracted with corresponding references:

• Case Details: The case is The National Investigation Agency vs. Areeb Ejaz Majeed, Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2020, decided by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 23-02-2021. (!)
• Charges: The respondent was charged under Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). (!)
• Facts of the Case: The respondent allegedly traveled to Iraq and Syria with absconding co-accused persons ostensibly for pilgrimage but instead participated in jihadi activities with the Islamic State for Iraq and Levant (ISIL). He was arrested on 29/11/2014 and remained in custody for over six years. (!) (!)
• Procedural History: The respondent had filed three bail applications on merits (plus one for default bail). The first two were rejected on merits by the NIA Court and subsequently by the High Court. The third application was restored by the High Court for fresh consideration, which led to the impugned order granting bail on 17/03/2020. (!) (!)
• NIA Court's Reasoning for Bail: The NIA Court granted bail based on two grounds: (1) The slow pace of the trial and the likelihood of a long duration for examining remaining witnesses; and (2) The prosecution had not succeeded in proving a prima facie case after examining 49 witnesses, despite 107 remaining. (!) (!)
• High Court's Finding on Merits: The High Court set aside the NIA Court's findings on the merits. It held that the NIA Court erred in treating the examination of prosecution witnesses as a "change in circumstances" to revisit earlier findings where bail had already been rejected twice. The High Court noted that without referencing the reasoning in earlier orders, the NIA Court could not depart from previous findings. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Right to Speedy Trial: The High Court reaffirmed that the right to a fair and speedy trial is recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that undertrials cannot be allowed to languish in jail for years. (!) (!)
• Application of Shaheen Welfare Association Judgment: The High Court upheld the bail based on the respondent's prolonged incarceration (over six years) and the likelihood of trial delay, applying the principles from Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India. The respondent was categorized under category (b) of undertrials in that judgment. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Application of K.A. Najeeb Judgment: The High Court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, noting that the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA "melt down" where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration exceeds a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Conditions Imposed: While upholding the bail order on the grounds of delay and incarceration, the High Court imposed stringent conditions, including:
  • Staying with family and submitting a list of blood relatives.
  • Reporting to the NIA officer weekly and to the police station daily (frequency reduced over time).
  • Surrendering passport.
  • Not making statements in media or social media regarding the proceedings.
  • Not communicating with co-accused or persons involved in similar activities.
  • Cooperating for expeditious disposal of the trial.
  • Not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)