ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Special Judge, NIA, Mohali vide order dated 05.09.2024, the appellant had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

2. Per custody certificate, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

3. The appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the appellant repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and to which the appellant shall have no objection. Counsel for the appellant further submits that he shall not use his right of speech expression beyond what is permitted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

4. The State’s counsel opposes the bail.

5. Facts of the case are being taken from the reply dated 22.01.2025 filed by the Special Public Prosecutor of the National Investigative Agency in the present appeal.

6. Appellant has been arraigned as A-3. The evidence against the appellant is mentioned in para no.6 onwards of the reply. The case of the NIA is that appellant (A-3) along with accused Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa (A-11) pasted posters of ‘Khalistan Zindabad Referendum 2020’ at various places in Patiala, Ludhiana, Jalandhar and many other places of Punjab and Delhi. The said fact has been corroborated by CDR analysis of appellant and Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa (A-11).

7. As per para no.7 of the reply, appellant (A-3) along with other accused had visited Sri Nagar to procure weapons for carrying terror activities in Punjab with intention to create terror in the minds of general public. The investigation is stated to have also pointed out that appellant (A-3) was recruited by a terrorist gang run by A-11. Further, the NIA Special Court Mohali has framed charges, as such there is more than prima facie case, rather the evidence is sufficient for trial and as such, charges were framed.

8. Counsel for NIA submits that once there is sufficient evidence, there is no reason to presume absence of prima facie, as such there is no occasion to grant bail to accused-appellant (A-3).

9. This Court is not doubting about presence or absence of evidence for the reason that once charges were framed, it was for the applicant to challenge the same which he did not, as such there is more than prima facie case against the appellant. Further, this Court is not deciding the present appeal on merits of the case but is more concerned about Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e. right of life.

10. As per the custody certificate dated 24.02.2026, the custody of the appellant in this FIR is 06 years, 06 months and 24 days.

11. In Angela Harish Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (CRL)-6888-2015, decided on May 04, 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[2]. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Charges have been framed against the accused appellant under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, amended 2008 and Sections 387, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Undoubtedly, the charges are serious but the seriousness of the charges will have to be balanced with certain other facts like the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed.[3]. The accused appellant has been in custody since