JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.

Brief Background

The appellant is an accused facing trial in cases arising from FIR Nos. 130/2008, 166/2008, 293/2008, 418/2008, and 419/2008 dated 13.09.2008 all of which now stand transferred to P.S.: Special Cell, New Delhi. The appellant has been in judicial custody/police custody since 04.02.2009 i.e., for a period of more than 12=-years as of date.

2. By way of the present appeal filed under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ("N.I.A. Act") the appellant impugns order dated 20.03.2021 made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi ("ASJ") rejecting his bail application in the above referred FIRs inter alia registered under sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 and 123 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ("IPC"), sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sections 16, 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (" UAPA ").

3. The appellant has filed written submissions dated 22.07.2021 as also a short summary of arguments dated 05.08.2021; and the State has filed status report dated 25.05.2021, setting-out their respective contentions in the matter.

Appellant's Submissions

4. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has made the following principal submissions before this court:

(a) That there are some 16 accused persons in the FIR and in the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets filed in the cases, but a perusal of the chargesheet filed by the Special Cell, Delhi Police on 27.02.2009 and the charges framed by the learned ASJ on 06.05.2011, only a limited role has been ascribed to the appellant in the offences alleged, namely, that he had carried a certain quantity of cycle ball-bearings from Lucknow to Delhi, which, according to the allegations, were subsequently used to make Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which were employed in the series of bomb blasts that occurred in Delhi in 2008. It is submitted that though 08 chargesheets/supplementary chargesheets have been filed in the matter, no further specific role has been ascribed to the appellant beyond what is alleged in the original chargesheet;

(b) That the appellant had moved a bail plea before the learned Trial Court in 2016, at which stage he had undergone about 07 years of custody; but the learned Trial Court had rejected that bail application vidi order dated 19.09.2016 on the purported reasoning that the nature and gravity of the offences alleged and the severity of punishment in the event of conviction "cannot be countenanced"; that the matter was at the stage of trial and about 213 witnesses had been examined whereas other witnesses were yet to be examined; and that the bail application of a co-accused had already been dismissed. The learned Trial Court had further observed that there was prima facie material indicating involvement inter alia of the appellant; and that a detailed examination of evidence was to be avoided at the stage of considering bail, for which reason there was no merit in the bail application and the same was dismissed;

(c) That subsequently, the appellant also moved this court vidi Bail Appl. No. 2288/2016, which was dismissed as withdrawn vidi order dated 10.01.2017 recorded by the learned single Judge of this court;

(d) That considering that the trial continues to be at the stage of prosecution evidence, with 256 witnesses having been examined, but more than 60 witnesses still l