Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. This order will dispose of the three criminal appeals. These appeals have been preferred by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against the common order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Nagaland at Dimapur granting bail to respondent No. 1 in the three appeals.

2. The appeals have been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

3. In Crl. Appeal No. 416/2017, Shri Kekhriesatuo Tep is respondent No. 1. He was arrested on 13.10.2017 in connection with RC Case No. 01/2016/NIA-GUW under Section 384 of the Indian Panel Code (IPC) read with Sections 7 & 8 of the Nagaland Security Regulations, 1962; Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Sections 10, 13, 17 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for short UA(P) Act.

4. In Crl. Appl. No. 417/2017, respondent No. 1 is Shri K. Hutoi Sema, who was also arrested on 13.10.2017 in connection with the aforesaid case.

5. Likewise, in Crl. Appl. No. 419/2017 respondent No. 1 is Shri Vilepral Aja, who was also arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 13.10.2017.

6. All the three accused persons/respondent No. 1 had filed individual bail applications under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) read with Section 43(D) (5) of the UA(P) Act.

7. All the bail applications were heard together on 16.10.2017 and by the common order dated. 17.10.2017, the accused persons/respondent No. 1 were granted bail.

8. It is against this order that the present bunch of criminal appeals have been preferred. The appeals were admitted for hearing on 27.11.2017.

9. We have heard Mr. J.A. Hassan, learned Sr. Public Prosecutor, NIA for the appellant and Mr. P. Khataniar alongwith Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the accused persons/respondent No. 1.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the contents of the bail applications as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused persons/respondent No. 1 as recorded by the learned Special Judge. He submits that on the basis of such contentions, no case for bail was made out having regard to the stringent conditions mentioned in Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act. Referring to the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, he submits that learned Special Judge has himself recorded the finding that the accused persons had been paying "tax" to terrorists and have also recorded the finding that they had undoubtedly committed the offence. But learned Special Judge took the view that the accused persons/respondent No. 1 had committed the offence because of threat without there being any materials on record. Therefore, impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is wholly unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the accused persons/respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned order is a well reasoned one and therefore no interference is called for. Learned Special Judge has balanced the interest of both the prosecution and the defence whereafter the bail order was passed. Accused persons/respondent No. 1 are Government servants and they have all along been cooperating with the investigation of the case. Bail once granted should not be cancelled.

12. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

13. Learned Special Judge considered Sections 17 & 40 of the UA(P) Act and thereafter held that the accused persons had been paying "tax" to different "underground" factions. As a matter of fact, he had examined the record which disclosed payment slips and other related documents indicating payment of money by the accused persons, who are all Government servants, to "underground factions" over a period of time. But having said that, learned Special Judge observed that none of the accused persons were sympathizers of any unlawful organizations and it was not that they ha