A. M. Badar, J. – This is an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008, preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna, in Special Case No. 02 of 2019 arising out of R.C.Case No. 05 of 2019, thereby rejecting the bail application filed by appellant Tripurari Singh @ T.P. Singh by holding that on earlier three occasions, bail petition of the appellant had been heard and decided by that Court on merits, apart from the fact that even appeal challenging one of that order has been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Cri. Appeal (DB) No. 180 of 2021.

2. The appellant is charged for the offences punishable under Sections 414, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 25(1-a), 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(a), 26, 29 and 35 of the Arms Act so also under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18B and 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at sufficient length of time. By taking us through the relevant portion of the charge-sheet he argued that the only evidence against the appellant as claimed by the Prosecuting Agency is that of confessional statement of co-accused Suraj son of Prabhu Prasad recorded by Police. He further argued that if that confessional statement recorded by Police which is at Page 83 of the paper book is perused then that confessional statement is not containing any allegation against the appellant in respect of any of the act of the offence alleged by the Prosecuting Agency. In fact, co-accused Suraj has not even named appellant Tripurari Singh @ T.P. Singh in his confessional statement to Police, leave apart the fact that confession made to the Police Officer cannot be looked into by the court and cannot form evidence against the accused. It is further argued that the prosecution has also claimed that the appellant used to travel for supplying arms and he has funded Rs. 60,000/- to the Bhikhan Ganju one of the accused. However, there is no tangible evidence in that regard. As against this, the learned Prosecutor has read opinion of the Investigator reflected in the charge-sheet to demonstrate that there is evidence against the appellant. However, he is not in a position to point out any evidence against the appellant in the form of statements of witnesses or the bank accounts. The learned Prosecutor has drew our attention to the statement of accounts at page-87 issued by the Union Bank of India and argued that this is account of Shiv Enterprises which is owned by the appellant. However, the account statement does not reflect this fact.

4. We have considered the submissions so advanced. We have also perused the materials placed on record of this appeal.

5. At initial stage, the offence was registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by Vijay Kumar Yadav, Sub Inspector of Bihar Police, vide Crime No. 35 of 2019 on 7.2.2019 for offences under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act against the accused persons named in the F.I.R. as well as against some unknown person. Subsequently thereto, the investigation of the subject crime was entrusted to the National Investigating Agency and accordingly F.I.R. bearing No. RC- 05/2019/NIA/DLI came to be registered on 28.2.2019. The routine investigation ensued leading to filing of the chargesheet against the accused persons including the present appellant. The appellant was arrested on 16.2.2019 and since then he is under detention as an under trial prisoner.

6. We have noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent with our comments. We reiterate that in the wake of rejection of earlier bail application of the appellant by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Cri. Appeal (DB) N