JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. appearing for the NIA. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.2022 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, AJC XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1789 of 2021 corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2021/NIA/RNC arising out of Balumath P. S. Case No. 234 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. It has been alleged that on 18.12.2020 an information was received at Balumath, Police Station that some unknown persons were burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near Check-post No. 1 at Tetariakhad Colliery. The miscreants had fired at the Police party that had rushed to the spot and had also burnt 04 trucks, 01 motorcycle and had also injured 04 civilians. From the place of occurrence remnants of burnt vehicles, fragments of a can bomb with wire, spent cartridges, handwritten pamphlets issuing threats to transporters and coal companies involved in mining signed by one Pradeep Ganjhu etc. were found. On inquiry it was revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha and Aman Sao had conspired with Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu (appellant), Pramod Ganjhu and others in disruption of Government work as well as for extortion. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120-B, 121-A, 216 of the IPC, Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 17 of the CLA Act and Sections 10, 13, 16(1), (b), 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the UAP Act for the sake of brevity). 5. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in exercise of powers conferred u/s 6(5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act vide F. No. 11011/01/2020/NIA dated 07.01.2020 directed the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 which was re-registered as Case No. 01/ 2021/ NIA-RNC. Charge-sheet was subsequently submitted against the appellant and other accused persons. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Charge-sheet was subsequently submitted against the appellant and other accused persons. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant that only allegation against the appellant is of ensuring a safe passage to Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari. It has been submitted that in fact the allegations against the appellant seems to be of conspiring with the accused persons in harbouring Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari and there is nothing to show that the appellant had taken part in Tetariakhad colliery incident. He had referred to an order passed by this court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 98 of 2022 (Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav Vs. NIA) granting bail to the said accused and has further pointed out that the case of the appellant is similar, if not on a better footing to that of the said co-accused persons. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 07.02.2021 and there is no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future. 7. Mr. A. K. Das, learned Special P. P. for the NIA countering such submission has referred to the supplementary charge-sheet while stating that the appellant was all along aware about Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari being involved in terrorist activities which would render Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act clearly applicable to the case of the appellant. It has been submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case makes out a prima-facie case against the appellant, thus activating the embargo for grant of bail as per Section 43 –D (5) of the UAP Act. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the various affidavits on record including the supplementary charge-sheet. 9. The primary allegation which could be deciphered from the supplementary charge-sheet is of harbouring terrorists. A mention has been made in the supplementary charge-sheet in the following manner: “17.24 Investigation brought out that on 21.12.2021 (morning), Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) reached Purnea, Bihar. At Purnea Bus stand they were received by Lankesh Kumar Sao, Advani and two others. Lankesh Kumar took them to his village Gauripur. Here, Pradip Ganjhu changed his name as Prem and Shahrukh as Tiwari Khan. They remained with Lankesh for a week and thereafter shifted with one Pramod Yadav. At Purnea Bus stand they were received by Lankesh Kumar Sao, Advani and two others. Lankesh Kumar took them to his village Gauripur. Here, Pradip Ganjhu changed his name as Prem and Shahrukh as Tiwari Khan. They remained with Lankesh for a week and thereafter shifted with one Pramod Yadav. During stay with Pramod Yadav, they came in contact with one Sharma Yadav, a wanted criminal of that area. On the direction of Aman Sahu, Sharma Yadav provided Rs. 50,000/- to them. Sharma Yadav also handed over 02 AK-47 Rifles to them. Both of them took cellphone snaps holding AK-47 Rifle and sent the same to Aman Sahu through Telegram app. After a couple of days, they went to Moti Yadav @ Sanjiv Kumar, Pramukh of Rangra Prakhand. Here, they were assisted/aided by Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav (A-12), Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Devmuni Yadav (A-13). After some days, Moti Yadav sent them to his associate Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10) at village Bhawanipur, PS Rangra, District Naugachia, Bhagalpur, Bihar. Here, they were also assisted by one Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav (A-12), an associate of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10), who was absconding and avoiding his arrest in a murder case. In this period, they were continuously in contact with Aman Sahu on Telegram app. 17.26 Investigation further brought out that during the absconding period in Bihar, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and Shahrukh (A-21) remained in contact with Aman Sahu (A-2). Police was tracking them in district Bhagalpur so they alongwith Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10), Prabhat Kumar @ Dimple Yadav (A-11), Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav (A-12) and Santosh Kumar Yadav (A-13) came to Jharkhand and were hiding in Pindarkom Forest. Babulal Turi (A-8) and his brother Ajay Turi (A-9) also joined them. On 07 February 2021, while they were plotting an another terror incident in Colliery area, they were arrested by Balumath Police with Arms & Amn, Mobile Phones, Sim Cards and a Golden Turtle Ring purchased by Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) from Bhagwati Jewellers.” 10. The role of the appellant demarcated from the aforesaid paragraph is that of providing assistance to Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari on their way to meet Moti Yadav @ Sanjiv Kumar, Pramukh of Rangra Prakhand. The appellant along with others were apprehended from Pindarkom forest and a mobile was seized from the possession of the appellant. The role of the appellant demarcated from the aforesaid paragraph is that of providing assistance to Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari on their way to meet Moti Yadav @ Sanjiv Kumar, Pramukh of Rangra Prakhand. The appellant along with others were apprehended from Pindarkom forest and a mobile was seized from the possession of the appellant. The allegations against Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav who has been granted bail by this court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 98 of 2022 seems to be more graver than the present appellant. In “Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav” (supra), it has been held as follows: “In the entire charge-sheet, what has transpired against the appellant is of giving shelter to Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari who were sent to the appellant by Moti Yadav. There is no material of substance to show that the appellant was aware or was “knowing” prior to giving shelter to Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari that they were involved in terrorist activities though a case has been sought to be made out that the subsequent arrest of the appellant and others including Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari reveals the nexus between the appellant and Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari which was the predominant reason for harbouring both the terrorists thus making the awareness of the appellant imperative to the status of those two accused persons. Another factor which has been highlighted in the counter affidavit of the NIA is the extracted data of the mobile phone seized from the possession of the appellant which reveals photograph of weapons and newspaper cuttings related to Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang. None of the factors enumerated above would accentuate the allegations made against the appellant of harbouring terrorists “knowing” the fact that they were terrorists.” 11. In view of the above, therefore, the appellant deserves to be released on bail as no prima-facie case inasmuch as under Section 43 – D (5) of UAP Act is made out against the appellant. We therefore set aside the order dated 31.01.2022 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, AJC XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1789 of 2021 and direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned AJC XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1789 of 2021 and direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned AJC XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2021/NIA/RNC arising out of Balumath P. S. Case No. 234 of 2022 12. This appeal is allowed.