JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J

Heard Mr. DK Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. GD Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. No one appears for the respondent. It is noticed that vide order dated 10.11.2021, this Court had held that since the respondent was already served notice, no further notice was required to be sent to him.

3. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA Nagaland, Dimapur in Bail Application No. 29/2017, granting bail to the respondent/accused, namely, Shri Tapitu @ Tapi (A-13), son of Yichutu, resident of village Phor, P.S. Melluri, District-Phek, Nagaland.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court could not have granted bail to the respondent/accused, in view of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein after referred to as the “UA(P) Act, 1967”), inasmuch as, an accused person can only be released on bail, if the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the information against such person is primafacie untrue. He submits that the learned Trial Court has however granted bail, only after considering the statement of the respondent/accused made under Section 161 Cr.PC and has decided the bail application of the respondent/accused in a cryptic manner. He accordingly submits that the bail granted to the respondent/accused should be cancelled. He also submits that the learned Trial court, while granting bail to the respondent/accused had stated that the allegation of conspiracy under Sections 120B IPC and 18 UA(P) Act had not been prima facie made out, which would prejudice the case of the appellant during the trial proceedings. He also submits that the observation made by the learned Trial court in the impugned order dated 01.05.2017 “whether the prosecution can secure the conviction of the accused for being a member of a terrorist organization under Section 20 of the UA(P) Act after conclusion of the trial,” could also prejudice to the appellant during the trial proceedings. He submits that the said observations should be struck off from the impugned order dated 01.05.2017.

5. The challenge made in this appeal against the impugned order dated 01.05.2017 is that bail could not have been granted to the respondent/accused, who belongs to the NSCN(K), a banned organization under the Sl. No. 39 of the 1st Schedule to the UA(P) Act, 1967.

6. The case against the respondent/accused has its genesis from the FIR dated 26.03.2015, which states that on 26.03.2015, at around 7:00 to 8:00 am, a telephonic information had been received from the SDPO Kohima, stating that a firing incident had taken place at I.G. stadium, Kohima. Thereafter Police officials had rushed to the spot for verification, where it was ascertained that 6 to 7 personnels of Bravo company of the 19th Assam Rifles, who were waiting for a bus near the gate at I.G. stadium, were shot at by 3-4 persons, who had alighted from a silver coloured vehicle (Alto or Maruti, number unknown), with AK-47 rifles and pistols and fled the scene. During enquiry, empty AK-47 shell, 9 mm shells and 1 AK bullet head and 9mm bullet head were recovered from the spot. 4 (four) of the 19th Assam Rifle personnels were injured in the incident. The allegations against the respondent/accused was that he had supplied arms to the NSCN(K).

7. Persuant to the FIR dated 26.03.2015, a case was registered. Thereafter, the appellant filed charge-sheet before the Court of the Special Judge, NIA Nagaland, Dimapur on 23.11.2015. The respondent/accused was thereafter arrested on 18.12.2015. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the appellant on 14.06.2016, wherein the respondent was named as Accused No. 13 (A-13).

8. The respondent/accused thereafter filed an application for bail vide Bail Application No. 29/2017. The same was allowed vide the impugned order dated 01.05.2017.

9. Section 43(D)5 of