Gopinathan, J.

These appeals are preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, herein after referred to as Act 34/2008. The appellant in Crl.A. 1939 of 2010 is accused No.12 in S.C. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of National Investigation Agency cases (NIA Cases), Kerala, Ernakulam. The appellants in the other appeal are accused Nos. 6 and 18. They are being prosecuted by the second respondent for offences under Section 3 read with Section 13(ii), 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, amended by Act, 2004 and Section 120 B, 121

(A) 124 A, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.6 was arrested on 31.10.2008, Accused No. 12 was arrested on 25.10.2008 and Accused No. 18 was arrested on 1.11.2008. Ever since arrest, they are in custody. Accused No. 6, 12 and 18, along with other accused, preferred Crl. M.P. 947 of 2010 seeking an order to release them on bail. By the impugned order dated 18.8.2010, the above application was dismissed. Assailing the above order, these appeals were preferred.

2. Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act reads as follows:

"21. Appeals --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court and shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.

(3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail.

(5) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:

Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days:

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days."

3. The impugned order being one rejecting application for bail, it is appealable under Section 21(1) and 21(4). Such appeal is to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court under Section 21(2). Therefore, these appeals were posted before us.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent State and the Assistant Solicitor General representing the second respondent were heard.

5. The allegation against the appellants are that the appellants joined as member in the conspiracy arranged for facilitating terrorism and thereby waging war against the Nation and in furtherance of their common intention and knowledge, they along with the other accused aided and assisted in facilitating terrorism by attending the classes arranged for the above purpose at Neerchal, Poothappara and also abetted accused Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 15 to attend the classes at the above places and at Jammu and Kashmir and they facilitated Accused 7, 8, 9,10 and 15 associated with LeT and get trained in arms and ammunition with the intention of facilitating terrorism and to commit terrorist activities and they also decided to make fake identity cards to conceal their identity with the intention to design wage war against the Government.

6. Sri. T.K. Kunhabdulla very vehemently submitted that the appellants were falsely implicated and they were not at all connected with any offence alleged and they are in custody for about two years and that the special court was not justified in declining bail.

7. The learned Assistan