JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent N.I.A. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 being aggrieved by the rejection of her prayer for provisional bail by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI cum Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi vide order dated 07.01.2021 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 918/2020 arising out of Special Case (NIA) 2/2018. This appellant is also an accused vide supplementary charge-sheet no. 25(A)/2019 dated 24.07.2020 filed against her and 7 others in R.C. No. 02/2018/NIA/DLI, dated 19.01.2018 arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016 registered under Sections 212,213,414/34 of the I.P.C; Section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 13, 17, 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 3. Appellant sought provisional bail for 30 days on the ground of taking care of her ailing and bedridden father and get him medically treated, since her mother is not alive and she is the only child. According to the Appellant, her father is in the hands of the neighbours, therefore she needs to be with him to provide proper care and treatment. It is submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has already been submitted. Therefore, there is no chance of her absconding or tampering with the evidence. 4. The learned Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi rejected the prayer upon consideration of the plea and the stand of the respondent- N.I.A. also containing the materials collected by the Investigating Agency and the statement of P.W.238, the father of the present appellant namely Chamru Gope. Learned Special Judge, N.I.A, Ranchi considering the aforesaid fact that the father of the appellant is under the care of her cousin Hiralal Mahto and that the matter is pending for charge, one of the co-accused Dinesh Gope, who is the husband of the appellant is still absconding as well as nature and gravity of offence levelled against her and chance of her absconding also, found no sufficient ground to allow the prayer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the grounds for provisional bail before us in this appeal. The primary ground for seeking provisional bail by the appellant is the ill health of her father who has no one else to take care of. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the grounds for provisional bail before us in this appeal. The primary ground for seeking provisional bail by the appellant is the ill health of her father who has no one else to take care of. The father of the appellant Chamru Gope has in his statement recorded by the N.I.A. as P.W. no. 238 stated that he is being taken care of by his nephew Hiral Lal Mahto. 6. Apart from that, learned counsel for the respondent –N.I.A. submits that the statement of P.W.238 Chamru Gope would show that he has no connection with the appellant since long as the appellant is residing with her husband Dinesh Gope, who is an extremist. It is submitted that P.W.238 Chamru Gope has also given details of his brothers and sisters. Learned counsel for the respondent – N.I.A submits that the husband of the appellant namely Dinesh Gope has been absconding throughout and therefore, chances of this appellant also fleeing from the clutches of law cannot be ruled out considering the nature and gravity of offence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in reply submits that on humanitarian grounds the appellant may be granted provisional bail at least for a period of 30 days, otherwise her chances of seeing her father and taking care of him may be completely ruled out as the trial of the instant case may take many long years as 241 witnesses have been listed by the prosecuting agency. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken into note the materials borne from record and we have also perused the impugned order. On consideration of the specific statement of the father of the appellant Chamru Gope cited as P.W.238 by the respondent N.I.A. in the charge-sheet, that he is a handicapped person being taken care of by his nephew Hira Lal Mahto and that the appellant or her husband are not in contact with him since long, the only plausible ground made by the appellant for provisional bail stands negated. Learned Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi has upon due consideration of the relevant materials, rightly chosen to reject the prayer of the appellant. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 918/2020 arising out of Special Case (NIA) 2/2018. Learned Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi has upon due consideration of the relevant materials, rightly chosen to reject the prayer of the appellant. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 918/2020 arising out of Special Case (NIA) 2/2018. 9. Therefore, the instant appeal is dismissed.