S. Vimala, J.

The petition filed by the appellant herein, before the Special Court, seeking bail in Crl. M.P. No.142 of 2018 in R.C. No.03/2018/NIA/DLI was dismissed vide order dated 7.6.2018 against which the present appeal has been filed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.9.2016, one Sasikumar, a person belonging to Hindu Munnani party was murdered by some unknown persons. FIR was initially registered by the Thudiyalur Police in Crime No.735/2016, which was subsequently transferred to CB-CID by the order of the Director General of Police and re-registered as Crime No.1/2016. It further transpires that secret information was received with regard to absconding of two persons, who were suspected to be involved in the said murder. During the course of investigation, two persons were arrested and remanded. In the course of investigation, on the basis of confessional statements, it came to light that the murder was in consequence of terror strikes wielded against the Hindus in the name of Jihad - war against Anti-Islamic activities. From the confession of the said accused persons, it came to light that the recitals therein attract the provisions of the special enactment and, accordingly, the section of offence was altered to one under Section 302, 153 (A), 120 (b) IPC and Section 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short 'UAP' Act).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on the alleged confession of one of the accused, the petitioner was implicated and he was arrested on 11.10.2017 and remanded to judicial custody. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his arrest is a stage-managed one and that the recovery said to have been made is a highly fabricated one, which does not show any connection to the petitioner.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has no bad antecedent and that the other two co-accused, who are stated to be the main accused, have already been released on bail and, therefore, there would be no impediment for releasing this petitioner on bail. Further, the main accused having already been released on bail, the petitioner, being shown only as an accomplice, that too, based on the confession of the co-accused, is equally entitled to similar treatment as has been meted out to the other accused.

5. Contentions and counter contentions on behalf of the accused as well as the prosecution was placed before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, on consideration of the same, held that while the co-accused were released on statutory bail on completion of 90 days of remand prior to invoking the provisions of the UAP Act and, therefore, the case of the petitioner would not stand on similar footing. On the above reasoning, the bail sought for was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

6. Mr.Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration very many important aspects which strikes at the root of the rejection order. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive put forth by the prosecution is not sustainable, as even according to the prosecution, initially it is their case that no personal animosity existed between the accused and the deceased, whereas, in the alteration report, personal animosity has been projected.

7. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that the discovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence, said to be at the behest of the appellant, is fabricated, as according to the prosecution, the confession of the accused was on 11.10.17, whereas the alleged recovery, that too without the presence of the appellant, was made on 28.10.17. Further, there was no blood stains in the weapon said to have been allegedly used in the commission of the offence. Therefore, in fine, it is submitted that the weapon being not recovered from the possession of the accused, presumption u/s 43-E