ORDER : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail in connection with NIA Case RC-01/2021/NIA/RNC registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian Penal Code Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908, has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case is based on the information received by Balumath police station that at about 19 hours on 18.12.2020, some unknown persons were burning vehicles by firing indiscriminately near check post no.1 near Tetariakhand colliery. Assailants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four trucks one motorcycle and injured four civilians. The remnants of the burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white colour empty gallon of approx 02 liters, spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets containing threats to the transporters and coal companies, involved in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) were found from the spot. Upon further inquiry it was revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha(A-1) and Aman Sahu @Aman Sao(A-2) had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3) and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others to collect extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, DO holders and disruption of legitimate works. Accordingly, Balumath PS case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, against Sujit Sinha, Aman Sahu @ Aman Sao, Pradeep Ganjhu, Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu, and 5-6 other unknown accused persons. The ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India in view of the gravity of the offence and its cross border and international ramification issued orders in exercise of the powers vested under Section 5(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008 vide F. No. 11011/01/2020/NIA dated 7.1.2020, directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case. On the direction of the. Ministry of Home Affairs NIA re-registered case no 01/2021/NIA-RNC dated 4.3.2021 under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B,, 121A, 216 of IPC Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act section of Explosive Substance Act section 17 CLA Act and section 10, 13, 16(1), (b), 20 and 23 UA(P) Act. After investigation NIA submitted chargesheet against Sujit Sinha (A 1), Aman Sahu (A 2), Pradip Gajhu alias Mandalji alias Premji (A-3), Santosh Gajhu (A 4), Bihari Ganjhu alias Bahira (A 5), Sakendra Ganjhu (A 6), Pramod Ganjhu (A7), Babulal Turi alias Prabhatji alias Prabhatji alias Guruji alias Avinashji alias Shankarji (A 8), Ajay Turi (A 9)(petitioner), Santosh Kumar alias Banti Yadav alias Banti Yadav (A 10), Prabhat Kumar Yadav alias Dimple Yadav (A 11), Pritam Kumar alias Chinku (A 12), Santosh Kumar Yadav (A13), Jasim Ansari (A14), Wasim Ansari (A15), petitioner Majibul Ansari (A16) and Jahiruddin Ansari alias Guddu (A17) u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A, 216 of IPC, section 25(1) (6), 26, 27, 35 of Arms Act, section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act, section 17 of CLA act, 1908 and section 10, 13, 16(1) (b), 20, 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 3. It appears from the material available on record that on the basis of the written report Balumath PS case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The Central Government, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence in exercise of power conferred under Section 5(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008, directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case and accordingly, the NIA re-registered case no 01/2021/NIA-RNC dated 04.03.2021 and took up the charge of further investigation of the instant case. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into custody on 07.02.2021, i.e., prior to the taking over the investigation by the NIA and, as such, prayer for bail was made but the same has been rejected vide order dated 04.01.2023 against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into custody on 07.02.2021, i.e., prior to the taking over the investigation by the NIA and, as such, prayer for bail was made but the same has been rejected vide order dated 04.01.2023 against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case since he being a student is having no nexus with the member of the terrorist gang and has been made scapegoat to ease the burden of investigation. The submission has been made that the allegation as leveled by the NIA in the chargesheet that the assailants had fired on the police party and when the police party had rushed to the spot, the accused persons had burnt four trucks, one motorcycle and injured four civilians but there is no evidence to that effect as has been gathered having not been mentioned in the chargesheet. It has been contended that the allegation against the appellant is that the gang members dropped threatening pamphlets asking the targets to manage the said gang by means of paying extortion money. But the said pamphlets were sent before the Forensic Science Laboratory for matching of the hand script but the FSL has not found the script of the said pamphlets written by the appellant and hence the rejection of the bail application by the learned trial court is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India reported in (2021) 4 SCC 704 and Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 . 5. Per contra, Mr. A.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the NIA, has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that there is no allegation against him, rather, ample materials have come against the appellant of having in collaboration with the members of terrorist gang, as would appear from the various paragraphs of the supplementary chargesheet. A.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the NIA, has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that there is no allegation against him, rather, ample materials have come against the appellant of having in collaboration with the members of terrorist gang, as would appear from the various paragraphs of the supplementary chargesheet. Further submission has been made that so far as the ground taken by the appellant that the hand script contained in the pamphlets has not been matched with the sample of script of the appellant is not sufficient ground to release the appellant from judicial custody, since, other than pamphlets, there are other incriminating materials against him, as has been disclosed by various witnesses in course of their examination. Learned counsel appearing for the NIA has also filed a counter affidavit giving therein the details of the allegations as surfaced and referred in the supplementary chargesheet. He has further submitted that the evidence collected against the appellant during the course of investigation was pointed out before the learned court below and the learned trial court while rejecting the prayer for bail, has not committed any error. The evidence pointed out by the NIA before the learned trial court for showing complicity of the appellant are mentioned below :- Sl. No. Evidence What it will prove 1 Confessional statement of Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhi, Sakendra Ganjhu and Pramod Ganjhu (D-11, D-12 and D-14) It will prove involvement of accused Ajay Turi in conspiracy of Tetariyakhand incident dated 18.12.2020. Accused Ajay Turi arranged electric wire battery of motorcycle petrol and caned for said terror incident at Tetariakhand. 2 Confessional State of accused Babulal Turi before Balumath police (D-19) It Will Prove The Part Of Ajay Turi In The Criminal Conspiracy. On His Direction Ajay Turi Wrote Pamphlets Which Dropped By Gang Members Of Tetariyakhand Colliery On 18.12.2020. Ajay Turi also arranged wire battery of motorcycle petrol and cane for said terror incident at Tetariakhand. 3 Disclosure statements of accused Pradeep Ganjhu and Babulal Turi and pointing out (D-57, D-58, D-59, D-60, D-61 and D-62). It will prove the conspiracy part of Ajay Turi in preparation and execution of terror act. Ajay Turi also arranged wire battery of motorcycle petrol and cane for said terror incident at Tetariakhand. 3 Disclosure statements of accused Pradeep Ganjhu and Babulal Turi and pointing out (D-57, D-58, D-59, D-60, D-61 and D-62). It will prove the conspiracy part of Ajay Turi in preparation and execution of terror act. 4 Disclosure and pointing out of accused Ajay Turi (D-87, D-88, D-89, D-90, D-91 and D-93 and D-94) It will prove the brother of accused Babulal Turi also read against him as he was part of criminal conspiracy in which he prepared pamphlets for the incident and arranged electric wire battery petrol and cane for said terror incident at Tetariakhand. 5 State of witnesses Laso Yadav, Ganga Yadav and Sampatti Yadav (W-15, W-16 and W-17) They will prove that the presence of accused Babulal Turi and his gang members in Pindarcom forest before the Tetariyakhand incident and they were planning terror attack. 6 State of witness Shimphy Sahu W-24 Witness Simphy Sahu daughter of Sunil Sahu shop owner of Mackluskiganj will prove that accused Ajay Turi has purchased electric wire from her shop. 7 State of witness deep Narayan W-23 Witness Deep Narayan a motorcycle mechanic will prove that accused Ajay Turi within his associate has purchased a motorcycle battery in the month of December, 2020 8 State of witness Jugesh Tana Bhagat W-44 Witness Jugesh Tana Bhagat shop owner of Kiryana store at Bhangiya will prove that accused Ajay Turi with his associate has purchased petrol and two canes from his shop in the month of December, 2020 9 Recovery from crime scene D-6 The recovery of blasted cane bomb, 07 nos. of empty cartridges empty plastic container and hand written pamphlets seized from the scene of crime will read against the accused Ajay Turi being part of criminal conspiracy. 10 Seizure list and arrest memo of Ajay D-39 and D-32 The recovery of pistol and ammunitions from his possession at the time of his arrest with other gang members from Pindarkom forest on 7.2.2021 will prove his involvement in terror activities and to be a member of terror gang. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order. 7. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order. 7. This Court, before proceeding to examine as to whether the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for enlarging him on bail, deems it fit and proper that the requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is required to be considered herein. Section 43(d)(5) 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. 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 v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [ (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. 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. 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 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 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….” 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 while considering the ground of delay under Section 43D(5) 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. 8. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid position of law as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court is proceeding to examine as to whether the accusation is prima facie true as compared to the opinion of accused not guilty by taking into consideration the material collected in course of investigation by the NIA. 9. This Court had directed the NIA to file counter affidavit, as would appear from the order dated 16.03.2023 and in pursuance thereto the counter affidavit has been filed. 9. This Court had directed the NIA to file counter affidavit, as would appear from the order dated 16.03.2023 and in pursuance thereto the counter affidavit has been filed. It is evident from the counter affidavit based upon the material collected in course of investigation as in the supplementary chargesheet that in course of investigation it has come on record that after the Tetariyakhad Colliery incident on 19.12.2020, a team of PS- Balumath searched the scene of crime at Tetariyakhad Colliery and recovered 04 burnt trucks bearing registration No. JH-19C-8853, JH-19B-5941, JH-19B-6142 and truck No-JH 19B-4021, one Yamaha Motorcycle No-JH01-DH-4269, one blasted Cane Bomb with wire, one white empty gallon, 07 empty fire cases out of which, 05 cases were marked as 7.65 KF and 02 empty cases were marked as BMM KF and three hand written pamphlets having contents ^^psrkouh rsrfj;k[kM ifj;kstuk esa dks;yk [kuu dj jgh vkmVlksflZax daiuh lkfgr dks;yk ifjogu dj jgh daiuhA dks;yk dk mBkvks dj jgs fMiks /kkjd fyVj dks psrkouh gS fd fcuk lqthr ckWl dks eSust djsa tks dke djsxk mDlks ekSr ds ?kkV mrkj fn;k tk,xkA fuosnd iznhi xa>w ¼1½ ;s rks Vªsyj gS fiDpj vHkh ckdh gS ¼2½ rsrfj;k dksy ekbUl esa ckWEc CykLV] AK-47, fiLVy dh >yd gS vkSj ex/k vkezikyh vHkh ckdh gSA^^ It has come that the Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7) have been remanded for custodial interrogation who have disclosed their association with Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and also the role in this criminal conspiracy. The accused Santosh Ganjhu (A-4) also disclosed and pointed out the places of receiving of Arms and cane bombs from accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) at Ranchi. The accused Bihari Ganjhu (A-5) also disclosed and pointed out the shops from where he alongwith Ajay Turi (A-9), the appellant herein, arranged electric wire, battery of motorcycle and petrol with gallons from Mccluskiganj and Bhangia respectively. The appellant Ajay Turi (A-9) along with Jasim Ansari (A-14) and his brother Wasim Ansari (A-15) when remanded to police custody for custodial interrogation, the appellant has disclosed his role in this criminal conspiracy. The appellant, in presence of the independent witnesses disclosed that on the direction of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his brother Babulal Turi (A-8), he wrote threatening pamphlets which were dropped during terrorist attack at Tetariyakhad on 18.12.2020. The appellant, in presence of the independent witnesses disclosed that on the direction of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his brother Babulal Turi (A-8), he wrote threatening pamphlets which were dropped during terrorist attack at Tetariyakhad on 18.12.2020. He further pointed out the shops from where he along with Bihari Ganjhu (A- 5) purchased wire, Battery of Motorcycle from Mccluskigunj district Ranchi and Petrol with gallons from a place called Bhangiya and the same were used in Tetariyakhand incident for the arson purpose. It has also been revealed that after collecting AK-47 and other weapons, accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) with his group, carried out firing in the siding of Purnadih and dropped threatening pamphlets. After this incident, the group while was going to carry out terrorist attack at Bukru siding, when they were intercepted by the Balumath Police. In the aforesaid incident one AK-47 Rifle, other Arms and ammunition and Rs.1,07,000/- of extortion money were seized by Balumath Police. The associates of Pradip Ganjhu namely, Manoj Turi and Jitender Tana Bhagat were arrested by the local police. It has also come during investigation that the role of the appellant in attacking the truck owners, D.O. holders, transporters and lifters to spread fear in their minds, so that they could be extorted and to execute the said plan, the appellant Ajay Turi (A-9) had participated along with the other accused persons and accordingly, they reached near Tetariyakhad Colliery and remained in the forest and on the direction of accused Babulal Turi (A-8), the appellant (A-9) along with accused Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), went to Mccluskigunj in the district of Ranchi and purchased electric wire and battery of motorcycle. He also purchased petrol with gallons from a place called Bhangiya, P.S. Balumath, district Latehar for using the same in the Tetariyakhad Colliery attack. It has further been surfaced that the appellant with the other accused persons took dinner at the house of on one Laso Yadav and while having the dinner, they were discussing a probable terrorist attack at Tetariyakhad colliery. It has further been surfaced that the appellant with the other accused persons took dinner at the house of on one Laso Yadav and while having the dinner, they were discussing a probable terrorist attack at Tetariyakhad colliery. It further transpires from the counter affidavit which is based upon the material collection in the investigation as in the supplementary chargesheet that the NIA has taken statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and the two protected witnesses had seen the said incident at Tetariyakhad colliery and had identified the other accused persons who had carried out firing and arson near Check Post No.1 at Tetariyakhad Colliery. It has also come in the chargesheet that the appellant was actively involved in the attack of Tetariyakhad colliery being a member of the terrorist gang of Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2) and was arrested from the forest with other accused persons with arms and ammunition while planning other terrorist attack. The said fact has been corroborated with the documentary evidences marked as D-6, D-11, D-12, D-14, D-19, D-39, D-32, D-57, D-58, D-59, D-60, D-61, D-62, D-87, D-88, D-89, D-90, D-91, D-92, D-93, D-94 along with the oral evidences marked as W-15, W-16, W-17, W-24, W-23 and W-44. The further material has come that the appellant who is the active member of the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang is still active in the criminal activities of act of terror, raising funds for terrorist act, conspiring, extortion, attempt to murder and firing using illegal arms etc. and several cases have been registered against that gang, the same is being referred hereunder as :- a) Tandwa PS Case No.61/22, dated 09.03.2022 under Sections 385, 387 and 34 IPC. b) Tandwa PS Case No.163/22, dated 06.07.2022, under Sections 385, 387 and 34 IPC. c) Tandwa PS Case No.256/22, dated 16.10.2022, under Sections 385, 387 and 34 Indian Penal Code. d) Tandwa PS Case No.85/21, dated 21.06.2021, under Sections 307, 324, 326, 387, 120B and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. e) Tandwa PS Case No.96/21, dated 02.07.2021, under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. f) Tandwa PS Case No.102/21, dated 17.07.2021, under Sections 414, 120B and 34 of IPC and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act. e) Tandwa PS Case No.96/21, dated 02.07.2021, under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. f) Tandwa PS Case No.102/21, dated 17.07.2021, under Sections 414, 120B and 34 of IPC and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act. g) Tandwa PS Case No.132/21, dated 30.08.2021, under Sections147, 148, 149, 307, 387 and 120B of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. Sections of law were changed subsequently as Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 387,120B of IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act, Sections 3/4 of Explosive Act, Section 17 of CLA Act and Sections 16, 17 & 18 of UA(P) Act, 1967. h) Balumath PS Case No.104/2021, dated 01.06.2021 under Sections 341, 342, 386, 387, 307, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. i) Balumath PS Case No.108/2021, dated 04.06.2021 under Sections 385 and 387 of IPC. j) Balumath PS Case No.115/2021, dated 12.06.2021 under Sections 399, 402, 386, 387, 120B and 34 of IPC. k) Balumath PS Case No.147/2021, dated 24.07.2021 under Sections 25(1-B)A, 25(1-AA), 25(7), 25(6), 26 and 35 of Arms Act. l) Latehar PS Case No.171/2021, dated 26.07.2021 under Sections 25(1-B)A, 25(1-AA), 26 and 35 of Arms Act and amended Sections 25(6) and 25 (7) of Arms Act. m) Latehar PS Case No.299/2021, dated 05.12.2021 under Sections 25(1-B(A), 25(1-AA), 26, 35 of Arms Act and amended Sections 25(B) and 25(7) of Arms Act. n) Balumath PS Case No.59/2022, dated 03.04.2022 under Sections 385 and 387 of IPC. o) Balumath PS Case No.166/2022, dated 03.09.2022 under section 387 of IPC. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the allegation of circulating the pamphlets for the purpose of threatening the people at large is not in the hand script of the appellant and although the sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory but no conclusive report has come. 11. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid submission, had directed the NIA to bring on record the report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata, as would appear from the order dated 26.04.2023. The report has been submitted wherein no express opinion regarding the authorship of the writing has been furnished for the reason that all the handwriting characteristic as occurring in disputed writings could not be similarly and cumulatively accounted from the respective standard writings. 12. The report has been submitted wherein no express opinion regarding the authorship of the writing has been furnished for the reason that all the handwriting characteristic as occurring in disputed writings could not be similarly and cumulatively accounted from the respective standard writings. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the aforesaid report, has submitted that the hand script of the pamphlets since has not been proved to have written by the appellant, hence, it cannot be said that the allegation against the appellant is prima facie true. 13. While on the other hand, Mr. A.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the NIA, has submitted that even accepting that the hand script of the pamphlets has not conclusively been proved but even ignoring the same, there are other materials basis upon which it can still be said that the allegation against the appellant is prima facie true and hence applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Supra), the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. 14. This Court, in order to assess further as to whether the report furnished by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the hand script contained in the pamphlets if has not been found to be conclusive due to the error in sending sample then also, on the basis of the other material available in the chargesheet, can it be said that the allegation is prima facie not true? It is evident from the material available on record that in course of investigation it has come that after the Tetariyakhad Colliery incident the police searched the scene of crime and recovered 04 burnt trucks, one Yamaha Motorcycle, one blasted Cane Bomb with wire, one white empty gallon, 07 empty fire cases out of which, 05 cases were marked as 7.65 KF and 02 empty cases were marked as BMM KF and three hand written pamphlets having threatening contents. It has also come that accused Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-15), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7) have disclosed their association with Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and also the role in this criminal conspiracy. The accused Santosh Ganjhu (A-4) also disclosed and pointed out the places of receiving of Arms and cane bombs from accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) at Ranchi. It has also come that accused Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-15), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7) have disclosed their association with Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and also the role in this criminal conspiracy. The accused Santosh Ganjhu (A-4) also disclosed and pointed out the places of receiving of Arms and cane bombs from accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) at Ranchi. The accused Bihari Ganjhu (A-5) also disclosed and pointed out the shops from where he along with Ajay Turi (A-9), the appellant herein, arranged electric wire, battery of motorcycle and petrol with gallons from Mccluskiganj and Bhangia respectively. The appellant Ajay Turi (A-9) along with Jasim Ansari (A-14) and his brother Wasim Ansari (A-15) when remanded to police custody for custodial interrogation, the appellant has disclosed his role in this criminal conspiracy. The appellant, in presence of the independent witnesses disclosed that on the direction of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his brother Babulal Turi (A-8), he wrote threatening pamphlets which were dropped during terrorist attack at Tetariyakhad on 18.12.2020. He further pointed out the shops from where he along with Bihari Ganjhu (A- 5) purchased wire, Battery of Motorcycle from Mccluskigunj district Ranchi and Petrol with gallons from a place called Bhangiya and the same were used in Tetarikhand incident for the arson purpose. It has also been revealed that after collecting AK-47 and other weapons, accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) with his group, carried out firing in the siding of Purnadih and dropped threatening pamphlets. After this incident, the group while was going to carry out terrorist attack at Bukru siding, when they were intercepted by the Balumath Police. In the aforesaid incident one AK-47 Rifle, other Arms and ammunition and Rs.1,07,000/- of extortion money were seized by Balumath Police. The associates of Pradip Ganjhu namely, Manoj Turi and Jitender Tana Bhagat were arrested by the local police. In the aforesaid incident one AK-47 Rifle, other Arms and ammunition and Rs.1,07,000/- of extortion money were seized by Balumath Police. The associates of Pradip Ganjhu namely, Manoj Turi and Jitender Tana Bhagat were arrested by the local police. It has also come during investigation the role of the appellant in attacking the truck owners, D.O. holders, transporters and lifters to spread fear in their minds, so that they could be extorted and to execute the said plan, the appellant Ajay Turi (A-9) had participated along with the other accused persons and accordingly, they reached near Tetariyakhad Colliery and remained in the forest and on the direction of accused Babulal Turi (A-8), the appellant (A-9) along with accused Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), went to Mccluskigunj in the district of Ranchi and purchased electric wire and battery of motorcycle. He also purchased petrol with gallons from a place called Bhangiya, P.S. Balumath, district Latehar for using the same in the Tetariyakhad Colliery attack. It has further been surfaced that the appellant with the other accused persons took dinner at the house of on one Laso Yadav and while having the dinner, they were discussing a probable terrorist attack at Tetariyakhad colliery. It further transpires from the counter affidavit which is based upon the material collection in the investigation as in the supplementary chargesheet that the NIA has taken statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and the two protected witnesses had seen the said incident at Tetariyakhad colliery and had identified the other accused persons who had carried out firing and arson near Check Post No.1 at Tetariyakhad Colliery. It has also come in the chargesheet that the appellant was actively involved in the attack of Tetariyakhad colliery being a member of the terrorist gang of Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2) and was arrested from the forest with other accused persons with arms and ammunition while planning other terrorist attack. The said fact has been corroborated with the documentary evidences marked as D-6, D-11, D-12, D-14, D-19, D-39, D-32, D-57, D-58, D-59, D-60, D-61, D-62, D-87, D-88, D-89, D-90, D-91, D-92, D-93, D-94 along with the oral evidences marked as W-15, W-16, W-17, W-24, W-23 and W-44. The said fact has been corroborated with the documentary evidences marked as D-6, D-11, D-12, D-14, D-19, D-39, D-32, D-57, D-58, D-59, D-60, D-61, D-62, D-87, D-88, D-89, D-90, D-91, D-92, D-93, D-94 along with the oral evidences marked as W-15, W-16, W-17, W-24, W-23 and W-44. The further material has come that the appellant who is the active member of the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang is still active in the criminal activities of act of terror, raising funds for terrorist act, conspiring, extortion, attempt to murder and firing using illegal arms etc. and several cases have been registered against that gang. 15. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid allegation and considering the fact that it has come in course of investigation that the appellant is the active member of the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang and had gone to the shop for purchase of electric wire, battery of motorcycle and petrol with gallons which has been corroborated by the shopkeepers. Further, he has been apprehended from the forest along with other member of the gang as has come in the supplementary chargesheet. 16. This Court, on the basis of the material available in the chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet, is of the opinion that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true, as compared to the opinion of accused not guilty of such offence which is being claimed on the basis of no conclusive report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for ascertaining the hand script over the pamphlets. 17. 17. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect as above and coming back to the order impugned wherefrom it is evident that the learned trial court has considered the material available against the appellant in the chargesheet as also by taking into consideration the statement of PW-25 and PW-26 (the protected witnesses A and B), list of documents Annexure-B, list of witnesses Annexure-C and list of articles Annexure-D as also the fact that other prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution against the appellant, as also by taking into consideration the provision as contained under Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967, has come to the conclusion that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true in comparison to the opinion of the accused not guilty and in that view of the matter, the learned trial court has not been satisfied to extend the benefit of regular bail. We are also in agreement with the aforesaid finding based upon the material of accusation of the appellant and not prima facie satisfied by taking into consideration the entire material on record and, hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 18. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.