(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UA(P) Act] - Sections 13, 15, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 43D - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 153A, 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22 - Grounds of arrest - Communication in writing - The requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest as mandated in Pankaj Bansal (2024) 7 SCC 576 applies prospectively from the date of that judgment (03.10.2023). Since the accused was arrested on 22.09.2022, prior to that date, oral communication of grounds was sufficient compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 43B of the UA(P) Act. (Paras 46-48)

(B) Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act - Prima facie truth - The bar under the proviso applies where the court finds reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. The earlier Division Bench judgment (Annexure A8) and the Supreme Court order (Annexure A9) had already recorded such a finding, which attained finality. The materials showed the accused, as a national leader of the banned organization, participated in a larger conspiracy involving training, recruitment, and incitement to terrorism, culminating in the murder of a person. (Paras 57-66)

(C) Parity in bail - The principle of parity requires focus on the role of the accused. The appellant was the kingpin (national leader), whereas co-accused granted bail were members of the ‘Defence Team’ with lesser roles. Hence, parity cannot be claimed. (Paras 68-88)

(D) Prolonged incarceration and right to speedy trial - The rigours of Section 43D(5) may melt down under Article 21 if there is no likelihood of trial completion within reasonable time and incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Here, the accused had undergone 3 years and 11 months of custody, but the prescribed punishment includes life imprisonment (or death). This period is not a substantial part of such a sentence. Moreover, the establishment of exclusive NIA Special Courts indicated that trial would proceed speedily. Therefore, no constitutional violation warranting bail. (Paras 89-163)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a leader of an organization declared unlawful, was arrested for conspiracy and involvement in the murder of a person as part of a larger plot to establish Islamic rule in India. His earlier bail applications had been rejected by the High Court and Supreme Court. The second bail application was dismissed by the Special Court, leading to the present appeal.

Findings of Court:
The arrest was not illegal for want of written grounds; the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) was satisfied; parity with co-accused was not applicable; and prolonged incarceration did not violate Article 21 given the gravity of offences and the expected early progress of trial.

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest was vitiated due to non-supply of written grounds of arrest? (ii) Whether the bar under Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act applied? (iii) Whether the appellant was entitled to parity with co-accused granted bail? (iv) Whether prolonged incarceration (3 years 11 months) together with delay in trial entitled the appellant to bail under Article 21?

Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of written grounds of arrest under Pankaj Bansal is prospective; the prima facie truth standard under Section 43D(5) is a lower threshold than for discharge; the appellant's role as kingpin distinguishes him from co-accused; and pre-trial detention of under 4 years for offences carrying life imprisonment does not constitute substantial part of sentence, especially when trial is expected to be expedited.

Result: The criminal appeal is dismissed.