IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of the evidence without delving into the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 03.04.2023 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 488 of 2023 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail, in connection with NIA Case RC-01/2020-21/NIA/RNC registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian Penal Code Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908, has been rejected.

Facts:

2. The prosecution case is based on the information received by Balumath police station that at about 19 hours on 18.12.2020, some unknown persons were burning vehicles by firing indiscriminately near check post no.1, Tetariakhand colliery. Assailants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four Trucks one motorcycle and injured four civilians. The remnants of the burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white colour empty gallon of approx 02 liters, spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets containing threats to the transporters and coal companies, involved in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) were found from the spot. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha(A-1) and Aman Sahu @Aman Sao(A-2) had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3) and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others to collect extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, DO holders and disruption of legitimate works. Accordingly, Balumath PS case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, against Sujit Sinha, Aman Sahu @ Aman Sao, Pradeep Ganjhu, Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu, and some other unknown accused persons.

3. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, in view of the gravity of the offence and its cross border and international ramification, issued orders in exercise of power vested under Section 6(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008 and directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case.

4. On the direction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, NIA re-registered the case being NIA Case no 01/2021/NIA-RNC dated 04.03.2021 under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A, 216 of IPC Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act section 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act section 17 CLA Act and section 10, 13, 16(1), (b), 20 and 23 UA(P) Act.

5. After investigation NIA submitted 2nd supplementary charge-sheet against Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23), Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26), Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and the appellant Kundan Kumar (A-28).

6. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into custody on 18.12.2021, i.e., after taking over the investigation by the NIA and, as such, prayer for bail was made but the same has been rejected vide order dated 03.04.2023 against which the present appeal has been filed.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

7. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected, on the following grounds:

I. That there is no specific attributability of the appellant in commission of offence said to be committed under the Schedule offence as per the allegation leveled in the FIR and nothing has come in course of investigation against the appellant in the charge-sheet also.

II. The appellant has been implicated in the present case since he was found to be involved in