JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeals preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 are directed against the orders dated 11.07.2022 passed in B.P. No.160 of 2022 (Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha) and B.P. No.161 of 2022 (Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda @ Shilla Hansda) by Principal District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella and against order dated 22.09.2022 passed in B.P. No.220 of 2022 (Rupesh Kumar Singh) by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No.67 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayers’ for regular bail of the appellants have been rejected. 2. Since these criminal appeals are preferred in connection with the same case (Kandra P.S. Case No.67 of 2021) therefore, these appeals are decided with the common order. Facts 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to these Criminal Appeals are like that on basis of written report of one Sanjay Kumar Singh, S.D.P.O. Chandil wherein it has been alleged that on 12.11.2021 at about 05:30 hours informant received an information through senior police official wherein it has been informed that one secret information has been received by the senior official that some Superior Naxal leader of MCC are coming on a Scorpio vehicle for organizing a meeting with their associates in Kolhan Area. On the basis of such information informant constituted several raiding teams and they have been instructed by the informant for checking the vehicles. 4. It is further alleged that at about 09:30 ?.?. informant and other police personnel saw a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. JH-22E-2866 was coming towards Giddibera Tol Plaza from Chandil and when the informant tried to stop the said vehicle but the driver of the said vehicle tried to flee away but same has been stopped by the informant with the help of other police personnel. It was found that 5 persons and a lady were sitting in the said vehicle and they have been apprehended by the police personnel and thereafter a search was made and in course of the search two SSD Card, One pen drive and cash of Rs. It was found that 5 persons and a lady were sitting in the said vehicle and they have been apprehended by the police personnel and thereafter a search was made and in course of the search two SSD Card, One pen drive and cash of Rs. 1,51,000/-have been recovered from the possession of the accused persons and accordingly all the aforesaid things were seized and seizure list was prepared. 5. It is further alleged that on interrogation they disclosed their name as Prashanta Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Buda, Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda, Raju Tudu @ Nikhil @ Bapu, Birendra Hansda@ Jitendra, Krishna Bagda@ Heven and Guru Charan Bodra. Accused namely Prashanta Bose during interrogation stated that he is the member of BHAKPA MAOBADI Polit Buero and in-charge of Regional Beuro. Further accused Shila Marandi stated that she is member of central committee of BHAKPA MAOBADI and they were going to attend a meeting at Kolhan area for the purpose to commit some Naxal activities. They have been further disclosed that in the seized SSD cards and pen drive some data regarding the plan of Naxal Activities and some other information have been stored. 6. The appellants namely Prashanta Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Buda, Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda (Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1205 of 2022) and other accused persons have been apprehended from the place and taken into custody by the police. 7. On the basis of aforesaid written report Kandra P.S. Case No. 67 of 2021, registered for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, section 17 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and sections 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 8. During the investigation name of the another accused/appellant (Appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1342 of 2022) namely Rupesh Kumar Singh was transpired on the basis of video clipping found in the aforesaid seized SSD Card and accordingly he was taken in to custody by the police on 18.07.2022. 9. Consequently, the above-named appellants had preferred the regular bail petitions but the same has been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2022 and 22.09.2022 against which the present appeals have been filed. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants 10. Mr. 9. Consequently, the above-named appellants had preferred the regular bail petitions but the same has been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2022 and 22.09.2022 against which the present appeals have been filed. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants 10. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds:- (i) The appellants have not cheated anyone and nor created any forged article or paper and hence sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted as against the appellants. (ii) As per the First Information Report Rs.1,51,000/-, 2 SSD cards and one pen drive have been allegedly recovered from the vehicle in the presence of police witnesses, however the said money belongs to the appellants and the money were kept by them for the treatment of appellant no.1 namely Prashant Basu and the pen drive and SSD cards containing songs were kept in the said Scorpio vehicle for the purpose of entertainment and appellants have no concerned with the said pen drive and SSD Cards which were allegedly been seized by the police. (iii) So far as appellant Rupesh Kumar Singh is concerned he has not been named in the FIR, however he has been arrayed as an accused in the instant case only on the basis of a video clip which was found in the allegedly seized SSD card, wherein the name of one Rupesh Jee without any parentage and address has been surfaced later on. (iv) No hard copy of either any Naxal Purcha or Literature has been recovered from the vehicle which clearly suggests that the appellants were not going to commit any offence as alleged in the First Information Report. (v) The certificate under section 65B (4) of Indian Evidence Act is mandatory requirement for production of electronic evidence and in the instant case appellants have been made accused only on the basis of electronic evidence and no such certificate under the aforesaid section has been sought for by the prosecution. (vi) The appellants have been arrayed as an accused in the instant case only on the basis of their own confessional statements which were made before the Police, however, the said confession has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. (vi) The appellants have been arrayed as an accused in the instant case only on the basis of their own confessional statements which were made before the Police, however, the said confession has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. (vii) No incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession of the appellants and they have falsely been implicated in the instant case. (viii) Seizure list witnesses are police personnel and no independent witnesses have come forward to support the prosecution case which casts serious doubt upon the prosecution case. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have considered that aspect of the matter, while considering the prayer for regular bail, but having not been considered, therefore, the impugned orders need to be interfered with. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the State 12. While, on the other hand, learned A.P.Ps appearing for the State of Jharkhand has defended the impugned orders on the following grounds:- (i) The appellants, namely, Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha and Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda @ Shilla Hansda are the named accused in the FIR and are the active members of the Maoists Organization (A banned Organization). (ii) When the appellants were apprehended from the spot along with his associates, two S.S.D. Card containing naxal activities as well as Rs.1,51,000/-were seized from their possession. (iii) The appellants, namely, Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha and Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda @ had confessed their guilty in commission of alleged crime as referred in the charge-sheet. (iv) Since in the instant case the seized article like 2 S.S.D cards and pen drive had already been produced in original, hence, certificate u/s 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not required. (v) In the instant criminal appeals the confessional statements of the appellants were in consonance of the incriminating articles recovered therefore such confessional statements of the appellant/accused have all the evidentiary value in the eyes of laws. (vi) The appellants, namely, Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha, Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda @ Shilla Hansda and Rupesh Kumar Singh, are having criminal antecedents in several cases. 13. (vi) The appellants, namely, Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha, Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda @ Shilla Hansda and Rupesh Kumar Singh, are having criminal antecedents in several cases. 13. Learned APPs appearing for the State, therefore, have submitted on the aforesaid premise that the impugned orders require no indulgence of this Hon’ble Court. Discussion 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the finding recorded by learned Court in the impugned orders as also the charge-sheet. 15. This Court, before proceeding to examine as to whether the appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case for enlarging them on bail, deems it fit and proper to discuss some settled proposition of law and the relevant provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967(herein referred as Act 1967) which is required to be considered herein. 16. The main objective of the Act 1967 is to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. As per Preamble, Act 1967 has been enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and dealing with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. Therefore, the aim and object of enactment of UAPA is also to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities. 17. To achieve the said object and purpose of effective prevention of certain unlawful activities the Parliament in its wisdom has provided that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3, a person, who is and continues to be a member of such association shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, and shall also be liable to fine. 18. Clause (m) of Section 2 of the 1967 Act defines “terrorist organization”. It is defined as an organization listed in the First Schedule. CPI (Maoist) has been listed at Item no. 34 in the First Schedule. Chapters III onwards of the 1967 Act incorporate various offences. Chapter IV has the title “punishment for terrorist act”. Clause (k) of Section 2 provides that “terrorist act” has the meaning assigned to it under Section 15 and the terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule. 19. Chapter IV has the title “punishment for terrorist act”. Clause (k) of Section 2 provides that “terrorist act” has the meaning assigned to it under Section 15 and the terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule. 19. Further section 10(a)(i) of Act 1967 provides that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3 which has become effective under sub-section (3) of that Section, a person, who is continues to be a member of such association shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine therefore, so long as Section 10(a)(i) stands a person who is or continues to be a member of such association shall be liable to be punished. 20. As per mandate of section 13 of the Act 1967 who takes part in or commits, or advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any unlawful activity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 21. At this juncture, it will be purposeful to discuss the core of Section 43D(5) of the Act 1967 which mandates that the person shall not be released on bail if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made are prima facie true apart from the other offences the appellant is accused of committing offences under Sections 17, 18 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, 1967. 22. The reason of making reference of the provision of Section 43D(5) of the Act that in course of investigation, the investigating agency has discovered the material against the appellant attracting the offence under various Sections of UA(P) Act. Since, this Court is considering the issue of bail based upon now also under the various sections of UA(P) Act and hence, the parameter which has been put under the provision of Section 43D(5) of the Act is also required to be considered. 23. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency Vrs. 23. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency Vrs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, reported in [ (2019) 5 SCC 1 ] wherein at paragraph 23 it has been held by interpreting the expression “prima facie true” as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967 which would mean that the materials/evidence collated by the investigation agency in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the First Information Report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offence. It has further been observed that it must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted. The degree of satisfaction is lighter when the Court has to opine that the accusation is “prima facie true”, as compared to the opinion of the accused “not guilty” of such offence as required under the other special enactments. For ready reference, paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment is required to be quoted herein which reads hereunder as :- “23. By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise. Our attention was invited to the decisions of this Court, which has had an occasion to deal with similar special provisions in TADA and MCOCA. The principle underlying those decisions may have some bearing while considering the prayer for bail in relation to the offences under the 1967 Act as well. Notably, under the special enactments such as TADA, MCOCA and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court is required to record its opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is “not guilty” of the alleged offence. Notably, under the special enactments such as TADA, MCOCA and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court is required to record its opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is “not guilty” of the alleged offence. There is a degree of difference between the satisfaction to be recorded by the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is “not guilty” of such offence and the satisfaction to be recorded for the purposes of the 1967 Act that there are reasonable 11 grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is “prima facie” true. By its very nature, the expression “prima facie true” would mean that the materials/evidence collated by the investigating agency in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the first information report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offence. It must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted. In one sense, the degree of satisfaction is lighter when the Court has to opine that the accusation is “prima facie true”, as compared to the opinion of the accused “not guilty” of such offence as required under the other special enactments. In any case, the degree of satisfaction to be recorded by the Court for opining that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true, is lighter than the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for considering a discharge application or framing of charges in relation to offences under the 1967 Act….” 24. It is, thus, evident from the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Supra) that it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire materials on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. 25. 25. Further, it is settled proposition of law that at the stage of granting or non-granting of the bail, the Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise and the elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. 26. It is the duty of the Court to record its opinion that the accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie true or otherwise and such opinion must be reached by the Court not only in reference to the accusation in the FIR but also in reference to the contents of the case diary and including the charge-sheet (report under Section 173 CrPC) and other material gathered by the investigating agency during investigation. Reference in this regard may be taken from the Judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vrs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294 . 27. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid position of law and the factual aspect, as has been gathered against the appellants is proceeding to examine as to whether the accusation against the appellants is prima facie true as compared to the opinion of accused not guilty by taking into consideration the material collected in course of investigation. 28. This Court had directed the A.P.P. to file counter affidavit, as would appear from the order dated 30.01.2023 and in pursuance thereto the counter affidavit has been filed. 29. It is evident from the counter affidavit based upon the material collected in course of investigation as in the chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet that the appellants are the leaders of CPI (Maoists) which has been declared as terrorist organization by Central government in 2009 which is evident from page 414 of Charge Sheet. 30. It is pertinent to mention here that based upon the collection of evidences, charge sheet u/s 121/121A/122/124A/419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 of IPC, 17/18/18A/18B/20/21/23(2)/38(2)/39(2)/40(2) of UAPA, 17 CLA and 83(1) of J.J. Act, 2015 has been submitted before the Court and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charge in all the sections mentioned in the Charge Sheet. 31. 30. It is pertinent to mention here that based upon the collection of evidences, charge sheet u/s 121/121A/122/124A/419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 of IPC, 17/18/18A/18B/20/21/23(2)/38(2)/39(2)/40(2) of UAPA, 17 CLA and 83(1) of J.J. Act, 2015 has been submitted before the Court and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charge in all the sections mentioned in the Charge Sheet. 31. It appears from the charge-sheet that the appellant/accused Prashant Bose @ Dada @ Kishan Da@ Kisan Da @ Manish @ Adarsh who heads the Maoist Communist Centre of India before it merged with CPI-ML (People's war) to form the CPI (Maoists) in 2004 is an active member of Central Committee, Politburo and Central Military Commission of CPI (Maoist) and there is a bounty of Rs. 1 crore on his head which is referred in Annexure 30 of Charge sheet. 32. It has come on record that the appellant Sheela Marandi @ Didi, @Hema Di, @ Shobha Di, who is the wife of Prashant Bose is the only women member of the decision-making body central committee (CC) of the CPI (Maoist) and she has been overseeing the women's wing (Nari Mukti Sangh) of the party. 33. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that both the aforesaid appellants with their other members were detained on 12.11.2021 while their vehicle was intercepted during their visit in Kolhan and as per seizure list many incriminating articles such as S.S.D.Cards, pen drive cash amounting Rs. 1,51,000/-was seized. 34. It further transpires from the counter affidavit which is based upon the material collection in the investigation as in the chargesheet that after the confession of Prashant Bose, fake voter ID cards containing photographs of Prashant Bose and Sheela Marandi were also seized from the Scorpio Van and during the course of investigation many incriminating materials such as video clips and photograph related to various programs of CPI (Maoist) were found. Various forged and fake voter card in other names were also found from the carpet of the back seat of the said Scorpio (Annexure 9, of the charge sheet). 35. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that these video clips and photographs clearly show the presence of Prashant Bose, Sheela Marandi including Rupesh Kumar Singh in these programs. (Some photographs of the petitioners found in SSD cards have been appended to the affidavit). 36. 35. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that these video clips and photographs clearly show the presence of Prashant Bose, Sheela Marandi including Rupesh Kumar Singh in these programs. (Some photographs of the petitioners found in SSD cards have been appended to the affidavit). 36. It has also come in the chargesheet that Audio clips (page 124 of Charge Sheet) containing speeches of many senior members including Prashant Bose and Sheela Marandi, given before the members of CPI (Maoist) including PLGA members (armed wing), were also found in the SSD cards but both these accused denied to give their voice sample and didn't co-operate in the investigation of case (page 313, 315 of charge sheet). 37. The further material has come that the seized SSD cards carried the write ups of the terrorist activities which appellants carried out in various parts of Jharkhand and killed many police personnel including snatching of arms ammunition of Police Personnel in these attacks (para 16.18, page 18, 19; para 16.23, page 20,21,22 & 23 of charge sheet). 38. It has further been surfaced that the Prashant Bose and Sheela Marandi couldn't give any valid source of income, rather both Prashant Bose and Sheela Marandi confessed during interrogation that the money amounting Rs. 1,51,000/-has been sourced from levy and they were to be used for terror activities (page 395, 396 of Charge Sheet). 39. It has come in charge sheet that the seized S.S.D. cards contained the footages, videos of naxal training for carrying out terrorist activities, audio clips containing speeches of Prashant Bose and Sheela Marandi, their documents such as detailed accounts of their levy collection, team members correspondence, letters and organizational modus operandi. The S.S.D. cards carried all such information including their footage, videos, audio clips, documents and letters written by and written to the appellants (Annexure 20 of charge sheet). 40. It has come on record that even one day before the detention of Prashant Bose i.e., 11 of November, 2021, Prashant Bose has written a letter, to Pankaj, which contains talk about party programs, their party constitution, secret meetings, sharing of Proceeds of terrorism, difficulties in raising terror funds etc. (page 223, 248 of Charge Sheet). 41. It has also come on record about the planning regarding movement of Prashant Bose and Sheela Marandi to Kolhan after rainy season (ie. (page 223, 248 of Charge Sheet). 41. It has also come on record about the planning regarding movement of Prashant Bose and Sheela Marandi to Kolhan after rainy season (ie. October) in 2021 which is clearly corroborated from the letter written by a senior member Ramesh of CPI (Maoist) to Prashant Bose on 15/04/21 (Annexure-20, page 240, letter no. 18, page 273 of Charge Sheet). 42. Thus, it is evident from perusal of the material available on record that the incriminating matter contained in 2 S.S.D cards, proceeds of Terrorism of amount 1,51,000/-, fake voter cards bearing photographs of appellants were incriminating in nature and these were seized from their vehicle Scorpio bearing number-JH 22E 2866 in which the appellants namely Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha and Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda @ Shilla Hansda along with their group members were travelling. 43. Thus, from perusal of the various annexures and paragraphs of the charge sheet, prima facie appears that both the appellants of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1205 of 2022 is the active members of the banned naxal outfit and their involvement in the extremist activities of the said banned organisation cannot be denied. 44. So far as Rupesh kumar Singh is concerned, it has also come on the record that he too knew about the movement of Prashant Bose and Sheela Marandi to Kolhan after rainy season (ie. October) in 2021 (Annexure 8 of supplementary charge sheet.) On the basis of evidences collected during investigation, Charge sheet u/s 121/121A/411/413/414/120B of IPC. u/s 17, CLA1908 and us 17/18/18A/20/21/38/39/40(2) of UAPA Act has been submitted against the appellant. 45. October) in 2021 (Annexure 8 of supplementary charge sheet.) On the basis of evidences collected during investigation, Charge sheet u/s 121/121A/411/413/414/120B of IPC. u/s 17, CLA1908 and us 17/18/18A/20/21/38/39/40(2) of UAPA Act has been submitted against the appellant. 45. It has come in the affidavit which has been filed based upon the finding of supplementary charge sheet that the appellant/accused Rupesh Kumar Singh has taken the garb(cover) of journalist for his stay in Jharkhand but the main purpose of his stay in Jharkhand is to strengthen the CPI Maoist and he has come to Jharkhand in 2014 and since then he has been working for CPI (Maoist) which is clear from letters exchanged between him and Prashant Bose and other members and his poems (page 55-77, para 6 & 7 of the Charge sheet), his collection of terror funds (page 20-24, para 16 of the Charge sheet), huge cash deposit of Rs 11,51,000/-in his bank accounts between 2014-17 (page 26-28, para 17,18 to be read with Annexure 28, page 580-668 of the Charge sheet), his participation of various programs of CPI (Maoist) (page 13-16, para 8, 10, 11 & 12; page 39 -49, para 2 & 3 of the Charge sheet). 46. It has further been surfaced that the appellant Rupesh Kumar Singh has been given fake names Raman@Raj in CPI (Maoist) to hide his original identity and this fact has been corroborated from the statement of two members of CPI Maoist during identification of the members of CPI Maoists found in the video clips and images in the seized SSD cards (Annexure 2,3 of the Charge sheet),video and audio clips found in seized SSD Cards (Annexure 1, of the Charge sheet), a handwritten letter (para 9 in Annexure 1 of the Charge sheet). 47. It has also come on record that the appellant has link with CPI Mandet since 2014-15 and actively participating in various programs of CPI (Maoist) which is apparent from para 8 of the Charge sheet. Further many incriminating evidences against the appellant have been collected in the form of video footages, images, audio clips, letters related to Maoists which is mentioned in detail in Annexure -1 of the Charge Sheet. 48. Further many incriminating evidences against the appellant have been collected in the form of video footages, images, audio clips, letters related to Maoists which is mentioned in detail in Annexure -1 of the Charge Sheet. 48. It appears from the record that a detailed investigation has also been done against appellant Rupesh Kumar Singh on Proceeds of Terrorism accrued to him from 2014-15 to 2022 which is mentioned in the para 16 to 41 of the Charge sheet, (Annexure 40 of the Charge sheet) to be read with Annexure 14 to 22 and, Annexure28 to 39 of the Charge sheet. 49. It has surfaced during investigation that his house including 5 decimal land at Ramgarh on the name of his mother, his car on the name of his wife, two of his wife's scooties, his brother's bike and his own bike, but none of the members could give any evidence regarding their reliable source of income. 50. It has also come in the chargesheet that in between 2013 to 2022, Rs. 32,76,000/-cash has been deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant Rupesh Kumar Singh and his relatives out of which Rs. 17,27,500/-in the year 2016) which was said to be the peak year of collection of levy by Rupesh (page 184, point 6 of the Chargesheet) during his interrogation. 51. Thus, from perusal of various paragraphs of the charge sheet it appears that the appellant is active member of the banned naxal outfit and he has been propagating the ideas of terrorism for many years by giving speeches, abetting the underground PLGA group to influence and add other people into the armed cadre group to strengthen their parties to fight the state agencies. 52. However the appellant was not an accused in the FIR, but on the basis of evidences collected from the seized SSD cards and with reference to Ann-2, 3 and 13, the appellant was identified as the member of the CPI Maoists which is a banned terrorist organization. 53. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held in the case of Arup Bhuyan Vrs. State of Assam & Anr., reported in (2023) 8 SCC 745 that being a member of the banned organization is also an offence under the UA(P) Act. 54. 53. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held in the case of Arup Bhuyan Vrs. State of Assam & Anr., reported in (2023) 8 SCC 745 that being a member of the banned organization is also an offence under the UA(P) Act. 54. The foremost argument as made by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecuting agency has not followed the mandate as required u/s 65B(4) of evidence act 1872 and therefore impugned orders require the indulgence of this Court. 55. In the aforesaid context, it will be purposeful to discuss the mandate of section 65B (4) evidence act 1872 which clearly states that when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representee in interest then certificate u/s 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not required. In the instant case it appears from the counter affidavit that the original article 2 S.S.D cards and pen drive were produced in court. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable in the eye of law. 56. Another contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the seizure list witnesses are police personnel and no independent witnesses have come forward to support the prosecution case which casts serious doubt upon the prosecution case. 57. In the context of aforesaid contention, the learned APP for the state has submitted that the people have been terrorized and due to threat perception and past history and the appellants fear and criminal antecedent, no independent witnesses even dare to come forward in the instant case. Hence, finding no way the police officials had to become the witnesses of the seizure lists in the instant case. 58. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsels for both the parties will be considered by the learned trial court at the later stage of the trial. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has observed that there is no bar to consider the police official as witness. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Chand Vrs. State of Haryana, reported in, (2013) 14 SCC 420 wherein the Apex Court has observed as under: “32. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Chand Vrs. State of Haryana, reported in, (2013) 14 SCC 420 wherein the Apex Court has observed as under: “32. In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana this Court considered the issue at length and after placing reliance upon its earlier judgments came to the conclusion that where all witnesses are from the Police Department, their depositions must be subject to strict scrutiny. However, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force, and are either interested in the investigating or the prosecuting agency. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought. The Court held as under: “Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent, unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause, to bear such enmity against the accused, so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness, or that his deposition cannot be relied upon.” 59. It has come on record that the appellants having criminal antecedents in several cases and as such, submission has been made that the release of appellants on bail would adversely affect the trial. They may influence the independent witnesses, might tamper evidence of this case and as such, his detention in judicial custody is required for the fair trial of this case and for the ends of Justice. 60. This Court, on the basis of the facts as referred hereinabove and coming to the provision of Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967 as also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) is of the view that it cannot be said that the allegation levelled against the appellants is prima facie untrue. 61. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find from the materials brought on record, it cannot be opined that the accusation against the appellants is not prima facie true. 62. 61. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find from the materials brought on record, it cannot be opined that the accusation against the appellants is not prima facie true. 62. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no illegality in the impugned orders dated 11.07.2022 passed in B.P. No.160 of 2022 (Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha) and B.P. No.161 of 2022 (Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda @ Shilla Hansda) by Principal District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella and order dated 22.09.2022 passed in B.P. No.220 of 2022 (Rupesh Kumar Singh) by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No.67 of 2021, rejecting the bail applications of the appellants, worth any interference by this Court. 63. In the result, we find no merit in these appeals, hence, the same are accordingly, dismissed. 64. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.