I.A.Ansari, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 31.12.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, in Misc. (NIA) Bail Application No. 05/2009, arising out of Special (NIA) Case No. 01/2009 under Sections 120B/121Section 14(3) of TADA. Both the provisions 121A IPC read with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, refusing to grant bail to three accused persons, namely, Jayanta Kumar Ghosh, Debasish Bhattacharjee and Sandip Kumar Ghosh, each of the said accused persons has preferred appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the three appeals having given rise to Criminal Appeal Nos. 12/2010, 13/2010 and 14/2010 respectively.

2. Aggrieved by the orders, dated 25.01.2010 and 08.01.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, in Misc.(NIA) Bail Application No. 08/2009 and 09/2009 respectively, both having arisen out of Special (NIA) Case No. 01/2009 under Sections 120B/121/121A IPC read with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, refusing to grant bail, the two accused persons, namely, Samir Ahmed and Arshingdao Waris, have preferred appeals under Section 21(4)) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, their appeals having given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 24/2010 and 35/2010.

3. As the prosecution's case against all the accused aforementioned are inter-woven and closely linked with each other, all these five appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. We have heard Mr. PK Goswami, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused Jayanta Kumar Ghosh (i.e., Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2010), Mr. JM Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused Debasish Bhattacharjee (i.e., Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2010) and Mr. M. Mukherjee, learned Counsel, appearing for the accused Sandip Kumar Ghosh (i.e., Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2010). We have also heard Mr. A. Talukdar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused Samir Ahmed (i.e., Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2010), Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused Ashringdaw Warisa (i.e., Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2010) and Mr. D.K. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

BACKGROUND:

5. The materials facts, giving rise to these appeals, may, in brief, be set out as under:

(i) Some significant amendments have been made in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008, the amendment having come into force on 31.12.2008. The amendments, amongst Ors., introduced certain conditions, whereby the powers of the court, under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have come to be restricted by placing some fetters on the court's discretion to allow an accused person to go on bail.

(ii) Basistha P.S. Case No. 170/2009, under Section 120B/121/121A IPC read with Section 25(1B)(a), Arms Act, was, initially, registered against two accused persons, namely, Phojendra Hojai and Babulal Kemprai, on the ground that, on 01.04.2009, at about 4-00 p.m., when vehicle Nos. AS-01-AH-1422 and AS-01-1-0609 were intercepted at 14th Mile G.S. Road, Guwahati, and searched, both the accused, suspected to be cadres and linkmen of a banned organization, namely, DHD (J), were found in the vehicles, wherefrom a sum of rupees one crore, in cash, and two pistols were recovered, the money being meant for purchase of arms and ammunitions for the said banned organization. The accused were accordingly taken into custody and investigation was started by the Assam Police. On being produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, the two accused aforementioned were remanded to police custody.

(iii) On 18.05.2009, both the accused, namely, Phojendra Hojai and Babulal Kemprai, were granted bail by the High Court, in exerci