The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a surface analysis of probative value of evidence at the stage of examining the question of granting bail, and the requirement for reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) read with Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 18th May, 2023 passed by the Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 61/2022 emanating from FIR No.243/2021, PS Special Cell, Delhi. By the impugned order, the appellant's application for grant of regular bail was dismissed. The appellant was arrested in the said FIR on 14th September, 2021 and has been in custody for about 20 months as on the date of the filing of this appeal, and has not been released for any period in the interim.

The FIR

2. The FIR was registered based on a reliable input received regarding a terror module planning a serial Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Blasts. As per the input, a group of entities were planning to undertake serial IED Blasts in India for which these multiple IEDs were arranged from unknown sources and apparently at an advance stage of preparation. It was suspected that an Okhla, Delhi based entity was an important part of this module having associates in various parts of the country including Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. This input was verified and corroborated through different sources and it emerged that a deep rooted conspiracy had been hatched by the terror module with its operatives in India to carry out the blasts. An in-depth investigation was lodged and the FIR was accordingly registered inter alia under Section 120B IPC.

3. As per the State, a multi-pronged operation was launched, several teams were stationed at Mumbai and Lucknow, Prayagraj, Rae Bareilly, Pratapgarh in U.P. simultaneously. On 14th September, 2021, on the basis of intelligence gathered, simultaneous raids were carried out in different States. Initially, Jan Mohammed Sheikh @ Sameer Kalia was apprehended in the Golden Temple Train by a team from Kota, Rajasthan while on way to Delhi; thereafter, Osama @ Sami was apprehended from Okhla, Delhi; Mohammad Abu Bakar was apprehended from Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi; Zeeshan Qamar was apprehended from Prayagraj, U.P. and the appellant was apprehended from Lucknow, U.P. Consignment of two IEDs, two hand-grenades and two pistols alongwith rounds were recovered after the arrest of accused Zeeshan, at his instance. Another team apprehended Moolchandra @ Saaju @ Lala from Rae Bareilly, U.P. and later, accused Humaidur Rehman was arrested on 18th September, 2021. On the disclosure of accused Humaidur Rehman, two pistols were recovered from a small trench in a village area of Prayagraj at his instance.

4. Pursuant to interrogation, Sections 18, 20 of the UAPA, Sections 4, 5 of the Explosives Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act were added. During police remand, as per the State, further information was disclosed of the alleged conspiracy to receive similar consignments of IEDs. It was also revealed that one of the consignments was received by accused Humaidur Rehman on 05th September, 2021 which was placed at the house of the appellant and was later retrieved by the accused Humaidur Rehman alongwith his associates, including accused Zeeshan, from the house of the appellant on 12th September, 2021. This consignment was later recovered from Humaidur Rehman which contained two IEDs, two grenades and four pistols alongwith rounds. The alleged vehicles used in the conspiracy, a scooty No. UP32MB1925, Maruti Alto Car No.UP32BU2959 and Maruti XL6 Car No.UP70FJ7806 were taken into police possession.

The Chargesheet

5. Charge-sheet dated 08th February, 2022 was filed in the said matter against the appellant alongwith Jan Mohammad, Osama, Mohammad Abu Bakar, Moolchandra, Zeeshan Qamar, Humaidur Rehman under Section 120B IPC, Section 18, 20 of the UAPA, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

6. The Ld. APP drew attention to the deposition of witnesses under Section 164,