JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.5.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA at Ranchi, in Misc. Cr. Application No. 443 of 2018, Special (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2017, vide R.C.-11/2017/NIA/DLI, arising out of Bundu P.S. Case No. 65 of 2008, whereby the bail application of the appellant Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter, who is an accused for the offences under Sections 302, 379, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 18, 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, has been rejected by the Trial Court below. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, praying for bail. 3. The case relates to murder of four persons, including one Ramesh Singh Munda, on 9.7.2008. The deceased Ramesh Singh Munda was the sitting MLA from J.D.(U) party, and he had gone to attend a function at Bundu High School, where an ambush was laid to kill him. In the occurrence, Ramesh Singh Munda, his two bodyguards and one student of the school, were killed. Initially some persons were made accused in this case, who were also acquitted. Subsequently, the investigation of the case was taken up by the CID, and ultimately the investigation of the case was handed over to the NIA, by the order dated 28.6.2017, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 4. Though, the matter relates to the occurrence of the year 2008 itself, the present appellant was not made accused till the year 2017. It may be stated at this stage itself that after the murder of the sitting M.L.A., Ramesh Singh Munda, the appellant Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter, had fought the bye-election as an independent candidate from the seat getting vacant, and he won the election, became MLA and, subsequently, also became Minister. 5. When the matter was investigated by NIA, the confessional statement of one Kundan Pahan, a top ranking CPI Maoist, (an extremist organisation), was recorded with respect to the case on 10.9.2017, in which, the present appellant was named. 5. When the matter was investigated by NIA, the confessional statement of one Kundan Pahan, a top ranking CPI Maoist, (an extremist organisation), was recorded with respect to the case on 10.9.2017, in which, the present appellant was named. Thereafter the appellant was noticed for interrogation by the NIA, and according to the appellant, he gave full cooperation to the NIA in investigation, but the appellant was arrested by NIA on 8.10.2017 in connection with the case and subsequently, he was remanded in the case. After investigation, the charge-sheet has also been submitted by the NIA against the appellant and other accused persons, and admittedly, the matter is now in the trial stage. 6. Before entering into the merits of the case for consideration of bail to the appellant, it would be appropriate to look into the provisions of Section 43(D)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, wherein there is an embargo on granting bail to the accused persons. The said Section reads as follows:- “43-D(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.” 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 597 of 2018 (Prabhu Prasad Sahu @ Prabhu Sao @ Prabhu Prsad Sahu Vs. The State of Jharkhand through NIA), decided on 28.6.2018, had an occasion to deal with the provision of Section 43(D)(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and this Court held that this Section is clear bar in granting bail to the accused, if there are materials before the Court for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. Similar view has been taken by the a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court also, in C.R.A. No. 197 of 2014 (Sadanala Ramakrishna & Ors. Vs. National Investigation Agency), decided on 26th August, 2016. Similar view has been taken by the a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court also, in C.R.A. No. 197 of 2014 (Sadanala Ramakrishna & Ors. Vs. National Investigation Agency), decided on 26th August, 2016. Now, in the backdrop of the settled principle of law, as also in view of the fact that offences under Sections 18, 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, fall within Chapters IV and VI of this Act, we have only to see whether the accusation against the accused appellant is prima facie true. 8. It may also be stated at this stage, that though in the present appeal, the appellant has also questioned the propriety of the order dated 28.6.2017, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, handing over the investigation of the case to the NIA, after about eight years of occurrence, but the appellant had challenged the said order in W.P.(Cr.) No. 458 of 2017, and the said writ petition, upon adjudication, has been dismissed by a Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 25.8.2018. As such, even questioning the propriety of handing over the investigation to NIA, is now no more available to the appellant. 9. So far as the involvement of the appellant in the gruesome quadruple murder of sitting MLA, his two bodyguards and one innocent boy is concerned, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the NIA from the charge-sheet submitted against the accused persons, that this appellant had high political ambitions from the very initial stage, and during investigation, the NIA could lay its hands on the materials to establish the following facts:- (A) The appellant contacted CPI Maoists group (an extremist organisation) for eliminating the sitting MLA and also backing him in fighting the bye-election on the seat getting vacant thereby, and the appellant contacted the dreaded maoist Kundan Pahan and other top maoist leaders for that purpose. (B) For eliminating the sitting MLA, the appellant had agreed to pay Rs. 5 crore and to give one A.K.-47 rifle and ammunitions to the CPI Maoists. (C) On 5.7.2008, while the said Kundan Pahan was camping at Barigada along with his associates, the aides of the appellant delivered him one AK-47 rifle and ammunitions. (B) For eliminating the sitting MLA, the appellant had agreed to pay Rs. 5 crore and to give one A.K.-47 rifle and ammunitions to the CPI Maoists. (C) On 5.7.2008, while the said Kundan Pahan was camping at Barigada along with his associates, the aides of the appellant delivered him one AK-47 rifle and ammunitions. (D) Again on 8.7.2008 while said Kundan Pahan was at Baruhatu, the appellant along with his aides went there in a white colour Tata Dicor vehicle, and handed over the amount of Rs. 3 crores in two bags, as advance amount to Kundan Pahan. (E) The appellant also provided Kundan Pahan the contact number of one bodyguard of the deceased MLA, who is also an accused in the present case, assuring that he would provide the information about the movement of said MLA. (F) After the plan was executed, the remaining amount of Rs. 2 crore was also sent to the CPI Maoists on 11.7.2008. (G) A raid was conducted in the house of the appellant, from where some incriminating letters were recovered by the NIA, one being written on the pad of CPI Maoists, demanding levy from two businessmen, and it has come in the investigation that the letter pad was being sent to the appellant for printing the letters for demand of levy and sending it to the business persons for collection of levy. These materials collected against the appellant during investigation by the NIA, clearly showed that the appellant was having active connection with CPI Maoists for fulfilling his political ambitions, and he got the sitting MLA eliminated, fought the bye-election from the same seat with the backing of the CPI Maoists group, won the election and also became a Minister in the State of Jharkhand. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, while arguing the case for bail, submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to political reasons, and all these materials have been collected after eight years of the occurrence, which is of the year 2008 itself, whereas the appellant has been made accused in this case only in the year 2017, on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused. It is also submitted that the alleged letters recovered during raid, were actually implanted, inasmuch as, even though the raid was conducted in his house earlier also on 8.10.2017, when the entire premises of the appellant was searched, but no recovery was made. Learned counsel, accordingly, made the prayer for bail of the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the NIA, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail, pointing out the materials collected against the appellant, as discussed above, and also submitted that Section 43(D)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is bar to grant bail, once prima facie case is found against the appellant. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon taking into consideration the materials, which have been collected during investigation by the NIA, we are of the considered view that prima facie involvement of the appellant in the gruesome quadruple murder of sitting MLA, his two bodyguards and one innocent school boy, after entering into conspiracy with the top leaders of CPI Maoists, an extremist organisation, cannot be ruled out at this stage, and we are satisfied that the accusations against the appellant appear to be prima facie true. 13. As such, no case is made out for granting bail to the appellant and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court below, rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 14. Needless to clarify that our satisfaction about the prima facie accusations against the appellant is only tentative, which shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. The Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced during trial, without being prejudiced by this order in any manner. 15. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.