JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This appeal arises out of order dated 20.10.2020, by which the appellants' application for grant of bail has been rejected by the Special Judge (N.I.A.) Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG).

2. The prosecution case is that in an incident of bomb explosion on 09.04.2019, four police personnel and Bhima Mandavi, a member of Legislative Assembly died. The NIA carried out investigation and filed charge-sheet before the Special Court, involving as many as 36 accused including the present appellant also. The allegation against the present appellant is that the appellant was also involved in the alleged conspiracy along with other co-accused under which he was assigned the role of collecting electric wire for being used for lying explosives. It is alleged that with the use of the wire procured by the present appellant underground explosive exploded resulting in death of MLA Bhima Mandavi, five police personnel and many injured.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that though the incident is said to be grievous and the alleged offences are heinous in nature, the appellant has been involved only on certain suspicion without there being clinching evidence so as to constitute a prima-facie material against him. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the involvement of the present applicant is based on his name disclosed in the memorandum statement of co-accused Matkaram and Linge Tati also. He would further argue that he is falsely involved in procuring electric wire in the statement of protected witness D and E. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that mentioning of name in the memorandum statement, by itself, is not an admissible piece of evidence and it cannot said to be a material, unless it leads to discovery of fact relevant. According to him, at the most, all that can be said that the appellant who is otherwise a shop-owner and supplier of materials may have sold electric wire to certain persons but that by itself, is not sufficient to involve him in the alleged commission of offence, unless there is some other material, independent of memorandum of co-accused, that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy also. He would submit that that mere sale of certain articles which are openly sold in the market would not involve a person in the conspiracy leading to commission of alleged offence. Learned court below has rejected the application mechanically without formation of opinion as contemplated under section 43(D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the NIA/respondent would submit that the alleged incident of murder of a sitting MLA and Police personnel was outcome of a well hatched conspiracy of all the accused who were assigned different role to play and the present appellant was also part of the same conspiracy, assigned the role of procuring electric wires to be used in lying explosive material underground. He would submit that it is not only the memorandum of Matkaram and Linge Tati, that the appellant has been named as one of the conspirators involved in the alleged commission of offence, the statement of protected witness D and protected witness E, prima-facie, shows that the appellant had procured electric wire from one of them and then it gave to other protected witness for being supplied to Linge Tati and the witness statement is that the electric wire were supplied in the house of Linge Tati. He would further submit that in the present case, after filing of the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court upon finding that a prima-facie case is made out for trial, has framed charges against the present appellant therefore, there is overwhelming material in the charge-sheet and the case diary to form an opinion in terms of provision contained in section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material and the contents of char