JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the NIA.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2021 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 565/2021 (Special NIA Case No. 01/2021/NIA/RNC), arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 by Sri. Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

3. It has been alleged that on 18.12.2020 an information was received at Balumath, Police Station that some unknown persons were burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near Check-post No. 1 at Tetariakhad Colliery. The miscreants had fired at the Police party that had rushed to the spot and had also burnt 04 trucks, 01 motorcycle and had also injured 04 civilians. From the place of occurrence remnants of burnt vehicles, fragments of a can bomb with wire, spent cartridges, handwritten pamphlets issuing threats to transporters and coal companies involved in mining signed by one Pradeep Ganjhu etc. were found. On inquiry it was revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha and Aman Sao had conspired with Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu (appellant), Pramod Ganjhu and others in disruption of Government work as well as for extortion.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120-B, 121-A, 216 of the IPC, Sections 25(1) (b), 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 17 of the CLA Act and Sections 10, 13, 16(1), (b), 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the UAP Act for the sake of brevity).

5. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in exercise of powers conferred u/s 6(5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act vide F. No. 11011/01/2020/NIA dated 07.01.2020 directed the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 which was re-registered as Case No. 01/2021/NIA-RNC. Charge-sheet was subsequently submitted against the appellant and other accused persons.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the predominant allegation against the appellant is of harbouring terrorists. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to Section 212 of the IPC and Section 19 of the UAP Act. In such context, reference has been made to the findings recorded against the appellant in the charge-sheet which is of harbouring Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari. Stressing on the word “knowing” as appearing in Section 19 of the UAP Act, Mr. Mazumdar, has submitted that there is no iota of evidence collected by the NIA from which it could be fathomed that both Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari were known to the appellant as terrorists. Absence of such fact would therefore render Section 19 of the UAP Act redundant so far as the appellant is concerned. It has further been submitted that Section 212 of the IPC entails a maximum punishment of five years while u/s 19 of the UAP Act the minimum punishment prescribed is imprisonment for three years which may increase to imprisonment for life and since the appellant has undergone a substantial part of the minimum sentence prescribed under the UAP Act, he deserves to be released on bail. He has referred to Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act while submitting that the allegations levelled does not make out a prima facie case against the appellant.

7. Mr. A.K. Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the NIA refuting the submissions advanced by Mr. Mazumdar has taken us through the charge-sheet while strenuously pointing out that the appellant was all along aware about Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari being involved in terrorist activities which circumstances would make Section 19 of the UAP Act squarely applicable in his case which would consequentl