JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the National Investigation Agency. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 344/2019 (RC-01/2018/NIA/DLI), arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016, corresponding to Special (N.I.A) Case No. 01/2018, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. The self statement of S.I. Nand Kishore Prasad was registered on 21.12.2016 in the house of Chandan Kumar in which it has been alleged that a secret information was received that the owner of Sahara Bank namely Chandan Kumar is planning to deposit the money of Chhotu Kherwar who is a member of a terrorist organization. A station diary entry was made and after constituting a police party the team reached the premises of Sahara Bank situated at Balumath market. The manager of Sahara Bank namely Chandan Kumar was taken to the Police Station for questioning. In his confessional statement, Chandan Kumar had disclosed that he was working in the post of Manager of Sahara Bank for the last five years. About 10-15 days back Chhotu Kherwar of MCC had called him up for depositing Rs. 15,00,000/- old currency notes. Chandan Kumar was thereafter given Rs. 15,00,000/- by Santosh Oraon. It has further been alleged that he took the cash and kept in his house for 2-3 days. The Agents of Sahara Bank namely, Mahendra Saw, Binova Prasad Gupta, Birendra Kumar Sinha, Anil Oraon, Shankar Sao and Pradip Ganjhu were directed to deposit Rs. 12,00,000/- in their individual accounts. The Agents had accordingly deposited various amounts in their accounts. It has been alleged that Chandan Kumar had kept an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-in his house. The amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-was fixed deposited in the name of Lalita Devi wife of Chhotu Kherwar. In view of such revelations the house of Chandan Kumar was searched and from the almirah of his bed room Rs. 3,00,100/-in cash of various denomination was recovered. On search of the premises of Sahara Bank 64 receipts bearing the signature of Chandan Kumar and in the name of Lalita Devi of Hamara India Credit Co-operative Society Limited were recovered. An Aadhar Card in the name of Lalita Devi was also seized. 3,00,100/-in cash of various denomination was recovered. On search of the premises of Sahara Bank 64 receipts bearing the signature of Chandan Kumar and in the name of Lalita Devi of Hamara India Credit Co-operative Society Limited were recovered. An Aadhar Card in the name of Lalita Devi was also seized. The accused Chandan Kumar was arrested by the Police. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016 was instituted against Chandan Kumar, Chhotu Kherwar and Santosh Oraon for the offences punishable u/s 420/120(B) of the IPC and u/s 17 of the U.A.(P) Act. 5. Subsequently in terms of the order dated 16.01.2018 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security-I Division, Government of India, investigation of Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016 was handed over to the National Investigation Agency and the First Information Report was thereafter re-registered as RC-01/ 2018/ NIA/ DLI. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not named in the First Information Report. It has been submitted that the primary allegations have been levelled against Chandan Kumar and Lalita Devi for having deposited Rs. 12,00,000/-of old currency notes post demonetization. It has been submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant is a member of a terrorist organization or had raised funds which were likely to be used to commit a terrorist act. He has further submitted that the appellant is in custody since 21.03.2018 and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. 7. Mr. A.K. Das, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the appellant had conspired with Chandan Kumar, Chhotu Kherwar @ Birju Ganjhu in depositing the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-in the name of Lalita Devi. He has submitted that Santosh Oraon through the present appellant had deposited extorted amounts of Maoist leaders in M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited, a mutual fund company illegally operating in the State of Jharkhand. The appellant is the senior team leader of M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited who was working on commission basis for Latehar Division. Mr. Das, further submits that the appellant had maintained registers of the Maoists who had invested in the mutual fund company. The appellant is the senior team leader of M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited who was working on commission basis for Latehar Division. Mr. Das, further submits that the appellant had maintained registers of the Maoists who had invested in the mutual fund company. He has also submitted that Santosh Oraon had received the money in the house of the appellant and he was directly involved with Santosh Oraon in investing the extorted money in M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited. He has also referred to evidence of some of the witnesses as well as the disclosure of Santosh Oraon and the appellant. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the affidavits. 9. In course of investigation, it had surfaced that the present appellant who has been arrayed as A-4 and who was a senior team leader in M/s Vikas Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited/Petron Minerals & Metals Limited for Latehar district was closely associated with Santosh Oraon (A-3) in commission of the instant crime. The company used to collect the money from general public through the Team Leaders and Agents. The deposits made in the company are time bound and the returns are paid after the maturity period. It has also come in course of investigation that being a team leader of Latehar area the appellant used to maintain the record of all financial transactions made by the Agents on behalf of the said company in the registers and diary. It was revealed that during demonetization, the appellant had actively assisted Santosh Oraon for handing/taking the demonetized currency amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-of Chhotu Kherwar (A-2) to Chandan Kumar (A-1) at his house. In the month of December 2016, after demonetization, Agents/Junior Member Santosh Oraon had deposited Rs. 1,80,000/-of Chhotu Kherwar in the name of his family members in M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited and he had also deposited the extortion money amounting to Rs. 26,50,000/-of other CPI (Maoist) members in the year 2015 in M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited in his name as well as in the name of the family members and relatives of other CPI (Maoist) members. 10. 26,50,000/-of other CPI (Maoist) members in the year 2015 in M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited in his name as well as in the name of the family members and relatives of other CPI (Maoist) members. 10. In the charge sheet the offences against the appellant was that by criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons he had knowingly and dishonestly received/ deposited funds which were acquired through extortion by Chhotu Kherwar @ Sujit Kherwar @ Chhotu Ji @ Birju Singh @ Chhote Singh @ Brijmohan Singh @ Birju Ganjhu @ Chhotu Da (A-2) in Sahara Credit Co-operative Society and M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited and thus had supported the terrorist organization with an intent to further the activities of the proscribed organization. The National Investigation Agency had submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences u/s 120B of the IPC and Section 17 of the UA(P) Act, 1967. 11. Section 17 of the UA(P) Act reads as follows: [17. Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.—Whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly or indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects funds, whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from any person or persons or attempts to provide to, or raises or collects funds for any person or persons, knowing that such funds are likely to be used, in full or in part by such person or persons or by a terrorist organisation or by a terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a terrorist act, notwithstanding whether such funds were actually used or not for commission of such act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section,— (a) participating, organising or directing in any of the acts stated therein shall constitute an offence; (b) raising funds shall include raising or collecting or providing funds through production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian currency; and (c) raising or collecting or providing funds, in any manner for the benefit of, or, to an individual terrorist, terrorist gang or terrorist organisation for the purpose not specifically covered under Section 15 shall also be construed as an offence.] 12. “Terrorist Act” is defined in Section 15 of the UA (P) Act and it envisages the following: [15. “Terrorist Act” is defined in Section 15 of the UA (P) Act and it envisages the following: [15. Terrorist act.—Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,— (a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause— (i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or (ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or (iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or (iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or (b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or (c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, public functionary means the constitutional authorities and any other functionary notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government as a public functionary.] 13. Section 17 would, therefore, indict a person if he raises, provides or collects funds either directly or indirectly from legitimate or illegitimate sources with a knowledge that such funds are likely to be used by a person/persons or by a terrorist organization or by a terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a terrorist act. Section 17 would, therefore, indict a person if he raises, provides or collects funds either directly or indirectly from legitimate or illegitimate sources with a knowledge that such funds are likely to be used by a person/persons or by a terrorist organization or by a terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a terrorist act. Section 15 which is quoted above also includes an act which threatens the economic security of the country. 14. On a cogent reading of the relevant provisions of the UA(P) Act attracted in the present case as per the NIA and the result of the investigation the role of the appellant has been described on the factual matrix of he being the senior team leader of M/s Vikas Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited/M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited for Latehar district and as per his disclosure statement Vikas Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited used to collect money from the general public through team leaders like the appellant and the money is utilized by the company in different projects. The returns are paid to the investors after the maturity period. He had also disclosed that after demonetization Rs. 1,80,000/-of Chhotu Kherwar was deposited through this appellant in M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited. 15. On the disclosure of the appellant a raid was conducted in his house and two registers and a diary were seized. One collection register (Elegance) contained the details of the money deposited by the Agents in Apeline group of companies including Vikas Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited while a collection register (Jai Gyan) contains the details of the certificates issued against the money deposited by the Agents. One corporate diary was also recovered which contained the record of the deposits made by the Agents. 16. We may note that Santosh Oraon who is credited to have deposited Rs. 1,80,000/-of Chhotu Kherwar in M/s Petron Minerals & Metals Limited and Rs. 26,50,000/-in the same company was himself an Agent/Junior Member of the company. The appellant was the senior team leader operating in Latehar district. Funds were collected from the investors and disbursed on maturity. Several agents were working under the appellant including Santosh Oraon and the entries regarding collection were made in the registers which were seized from the house of the appellant. The appellant was the senior team leader operating in Latehar district. Funds were collected from the investors and disbursed on maturity. Several agents were working under the appellant including Santosh Oraon and the entries regarding collection were made in the registers which were seized from the house of the appellant. Mere collection of funds from a member of the terrorist organization for the purpose of investment in a company in which the appellant works on a commission basis cannot be solely construed to be a terrorist act. The vocation of the appellant demanded collection of money from the public for investment and, therefore, the act of the appellant cannot be read in isolation but on a totality of the circumstances which have emerged. There is also nothing to show that the amount collected was once again channeled back to the terrorist organization for carrying out subversive activities. The allegations are primarily centered around Santosh Oraon and so far as the present appellant is concerned, he being the senior team leader of the company was also instrumental in getting the tainted money deposited and which were the demonetized currency notes. The other factor which weighs heavily in favour of the appellant is the period of his incarceration which is since 21.03.2018. There is also a remote possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. 17. In “Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb”, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 , it was held as follows: “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. 18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent’s prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected. 19. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the respondent on bail is that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such precondition under UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc.” 18. On consideration of the entire facets of the case, the period of custody of the appellant and the remote possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future, we feel inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 344/2019 (RC-01/2018/NIA/DLI), arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016, corresponding to Special (N.I.A) Case No. 01/2018, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected is hereby set aside and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. Cr. Application No. 344/2019 (RC-01/2018/NIA/DLI), arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016, corresponding to Special (N.I.A) Case No. 01/2018, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected is hereby set aside and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 344/2019 (RC-01/2018/NIA/DLI), arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016, corresponding to Special (N.I.A) Case No. 01/2018. 20. This appeal is allowed. 21. Pending I.As., if any, stands disposed off.