JUDGMENT : (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 28.01.2023 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 brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution version, which required to be enumerated reads hereunder as :- 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 some other unknown accused persons. 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 some 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 6(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008, 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 04.03.2021 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 3 & 4 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 2nd supplementary chargesheet against Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23), Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26), Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and the appellant Kundan Kumar (A-28). 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 6(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 19.07.2021, i.e., after taking over the investigation by the NIA and, as such, prayer for bail was made but the same has been rejected vide order dated 28.01.2023 against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. Mr. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into custody on 19.07.2021, i.e., after taking over the investigation by the NIA and, as such, prayer for bail was made but the same has been rejected vide order dated 28.01.2023 against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground that no incriminating material has been found to substantiate the involvement of the appellant in the instant case. It has been contended that nothing has been surfaced in course of investigation by which it can be said that the appellant had provided harbor to Shahrukh Ansari and Vikas Anand Ojha. It has been contended that the other co-accused persons, namely, Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav has been granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2022 and the case of the appellant is exactly similarly to that of the case of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav and hence the instant application is fit to be allowed by interfering with the order impugned. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), has submitted that specific attributability has come against the appellant to the effect that he was arrested from Swanti Kundan Enclave by Namkum Police and six country made pistols and 27 cartridges were recovered from the said flat which was in presence of the appellant basis upon which he has been arrayed as an accused as A-28. It has been contended by referring to paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the 2nd supplementary chargesheet wherein specific involvement of the appellant has been surfaced in course of investigation of giving active support to the banned organization and even the recovery of arms and ammunitions have been made from the flat where the appellant was present along with one Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27). It has also been stated by referring to an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Akash Kumar Roy dated 13.02.2023 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1238 of 2022 wherefrom it is evident that prayer for regular bail of said Akash Kumar Roy has been rejected and according to learned counsel, the case of Akash Kumar Roy is exactly similar to that the appellant of this case and hence this application is fit to be rejected on the aforesaid basis. It has been contended by rebutting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the case of the appellant is identical to that of the case of on Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav who has been granted the benefit of regular bail vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2022 on the ground that against the said Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav the allegation was only of harbouring the terrorist but herein the allegation as per the chargesheet is that the arms and ammunitions were recovered in huge quantity in presence of the appellant from the flat and, as such, he was arrested from the spot itself, therefore, the allegation as surfaced against Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav cannot be said to be identical with the case of the appellant, rather, the case of the appellant is similar to that of Akash Kumar Roy as would be evident from the material surfaced in course of investigation as referred in paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the 2nd supplementary chargesheet. Mr. Das, in the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned order dated 28.01.2023 may not be interfered with. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned court as recorded in the impugned order dated 28.01.2023. 7. It would be evident from the prosecution version that on 18.12.2020 a case being Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 was instituted on information received at the Balumath Police Station against the unknown persons leveling therein the charge of burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near Check Post No.1 near Tetariakhand Colliery. The miscreants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four trucks one motorcycle and also injured 04 civilians. The miscreants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four trucks one motorcycle and also injured 04 civilians. From the place of occurrence, 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 were found from the spot. The Police, on enquiry found that Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu @Aman Sao had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu 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. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Balumath P.S. case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was instituted for the offence under Sections 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 accused persons. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in exercise of power conferred under Section 6(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008, directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the Balumath P.S. case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 which was re-registered case no 01/2021/NIA-RNC. Chargesheet was consequently submitted against the appellant and other accused persons. The argument which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that no incriminating material has been surfaced in course of investigation and whatever material has come, exactly the same material has also been surfaced against Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav who has been granted the benefit of regular bail vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2022. Therefore, the appellant herein also deserves to be released on bail by interfering with the order impugned dated 28.01.2023. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that ample evidence has been collected in course of investigation as would appear from paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the 2nd supplementary chargesheet wherefrom it is evident that apart from harbouring the terrorist, huge quantity of arms and ammunitions were recovered from the flat in presence of the appellant and from the spot the appellant has been arrested. The ground, therefore, has been agitated that the case of the appellant is not identical to the accused Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav since against Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav the allegation of harbouring the terrorist is there while herein apart from harbouring the terrorist, huge quantity of arms and ammunitions were also recovered from the flat in presence of the appellant from where he has been apprehended. The ground has also been taken that the case of the appellant is similar to that of accused Akash Kumar Roy whose bail application has already been rejected, as would appear from Annexure-B appended to the counter affidavit, against whom the allegation is similar to that of the appellant as would appear from paragraph 17.23, 17.24 and 17.36 of the chargesheet. 8. This Court, before proceeding to consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer the judicial pronouncement which is to be considered by the court while releasing the accused from the judicial custody. The Hon'ble Apex Court by setting out propounding the law in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [ (2019) 5 SCC 1 ], wherein it has been held at paragraph 24 and 25 which reads hereunder as :- “24. A priori, the exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this stage—of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail—is markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. 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. 25. From the analysis of the impugned judgment, it appears to us that the High Court has ventured into an area of examining the merits and demerits of the evidence. For, it noted that the evidence in the form of statements of witnesses under Section 161 are not admissible. Further, the documents pressed into service by the investigating agency were not admissible in evidence. It also noted that it was unlikely that the document had been recovered from the residence of Ghulam Mohammad Bhatt till 16-8-2017 (para 61 of the impugned judgment). Further, the documents pressed into service by the investigating agency were not admissible in evidence. It also noted that it was unlikely that the document had been recovered from the residence of Ghulam Mohammad Bhatt till 16-8-2017 (para 61 of the impugned judgment). Similarly, the approach of the High Court in completely discarding the statements of the protected witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC, on the specious ground that the same was kept in a sealed cover and was not even perused by the Designated Court and also because reference to such statements having been recorded was not found in the charge-sheet already filed against the respondent is, in our opinion, in complete disregard of the duty of the Court to record its opinion that the accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie true or otherwise. That 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.” It is, thus, evident that the exercise to be undertaken by the court at this stage of granting bail of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail that is markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. Rather, 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. 9. This Court is now proceeding to consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order by taking together the material which has been revealed in course of investigation against the appellant. The extract of the supplementary chargesheet is part of the counter affidavit as appended as Annexure-A. It appears from paragraph 17.23 that it has come on record that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, received multiple consignments of arms and ammunition from MP and Maharashtra and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others in the name of Abhishek. Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) further provided these arms and ammunition to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused and other gang members. Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) was arrested by a team of Special Cell, Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra. It has further been revealed as has been referred under paragraph 17.24 of the supplementary chargesheet that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) visited the said flat at Nankum, Ranchi and supplied arms and ammunition during his visit in June/July 2021. On 19.07.2021 this flat was raided by Police of PS Namkum and arrested Kundan Kumar (A-28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26). Shahrukh Ansari and Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu(A-27) managed to escape from this flat. A separate case no.187/2021,dated 19.07.2021 was registered by Namkum Police against Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan (A-28) and others. It appears from Paragraph 17.26 that Kundan Kumar (A-28) received Shahrukh Ansari from Ratu Talab, Ratu in Ranchi and brought him at Namkum flat for facilitating his safe stay/harbor for further criminal activities. Kundan Kumar (A-28) was tasked to supply arms and ammunition to the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang. The investigation further revealed as has been referred at paragraph 17.36 wherein the complicity of Kundan Kumar (A-28) has been referred who has been seen with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu. It has also come that during the photo identification proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July 2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) in the said flat. He has also corroborated the fact that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in the flat, this person was also present in the said flat in Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28). He has also corroborated the fact that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in the flat, this person was also present in the said flat in Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28). Paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 are quoted hereunder as :- “17.23 During the investigation, it has come on record that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, received multiple consignments of arms and ammunition from MP and Maharashtra and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others in the name of Abhishek. Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27). Kundan Kumar (A-28) further provided these arms and ammunition to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused and other gang members. Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) was arrested by a team of Special Cell, Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra in its case No. 225 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021 having in possession 20 semi-automatic/country made pistols, 50 live rounds, One Xiaomi smart phone alongwith 02 Airtel Sim cards. 17.24 Investigation has revealed that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) visited the said flat at Nankum, Ranchi and supplied arms and ammunition during his visit in June/July 2021. On 19.07.2021 this flat was raided by Police of PS Namkum and arrested Kundan Kumar (A-28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26). Shahrukh Ansari and Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) managed to escape from this flat. A separate case no.187/2021, dated 19.07.2021 was registered by Namkum Police against Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan (A-28) and others. 17.26 During investigation, it has come on record that Kundan Kumar (A-28) received Shahrukh Ansari from Ratu Talab, Ratu in Ranchi and brought him at Namkum flat for facilitating his safe stay/harbor for further criminal activities. Kundan Kumar (A-28) was tasked to supply arms and ammunition to the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang. 17.26 During investigation, it has come on record that Kundan Kumar (A-28) received Shahrukh Ansari from Ratu Talab, Ratu in Ranchi and brought him at Namkum flat for facilitating his safe stay/harbor for further criminal activities. Kundan Kumar (A-28) was tasked to supply arms and ammunition to the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang. 17.36 During investigation, it has come on record that Protected witness "C" stated that Akash Kumar Roy a Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) arranged a flat at Namkum, Ranchion forged ID proof. He saw other persons with Akash Kumar Roy @Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) at this flat During, the photo identification proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July 2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28)in the said flat. He also identified the photograph of Shahrukh Ansari and stated that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in this flat, this person was also present at the said flat in Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28).” The supplementary chargesheet, thus, corroborates the fact about incriminating materials having been found by the investigating agency in course of investigation against the appellant. 10. The argument which has emphatically been made on behalf of the appellant that the case of the appellant is similar to that of the case of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav who has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2022, while on the other hand, serious objection to such submission has been made by learned counsel for the NIA by placing reliance upon the order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1238 of 2022 by which prayer for bail of accused Akash Kumar Roy has been rejected. 11. Section 43D(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. 11. Section 43D(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 (Supra) 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. 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. 12. 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. This Court, therefore, is now required to consider as to whether after following the principle laid down under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967, the case of the appellant can be said to be identical to that of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav or similar to that of the case of Akash Kumar Roy, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1238 of 2022. The chargesheet reflects as also the order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2022 in favour of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav wherein the Coordinate Bench while granting privilege of bail has considered the nature of allegation against the appellant of the said case of harbouring the terrorist, on that ground the privilege of bail was granted along with the ground that Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav is languishing in judicial custody since long. But, when the supplementary chargesheet has been examined by this Court in order to assess as has been contended on behalf of the NIA that the case of the appellant is similar to that of accused Akash Kumar Roy by which this Court is in agreement with such submission by going through the incriminating material collected in course of investigation mentioned in paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the supplementary chargesheet, as quoted and referred hereinabove. The complicity which has been found of the appellant is similar to that of the accused Akash Kumar Roy since the appellant was found to be along Akash Kumar Roy from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, the period in which multiple consignments of arms and ammunitions from MP and Maharashtra were received and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28), the appellant of the instant appeal. It has also come in the aforesaid paragraph that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang and both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari. The aforesaid flat was raided by the Namkum Policy on 19.07.2021 and from the spot the appellant was apprehended with the arms and ammunitions supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha. It has come under paragraph 17.36 that the protected witness "C" stated that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) arranged a flat in Namkum, Ranchi on the basis of forged I/D proof. He saw other persons with Akash Kumar Roy @Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) at this flat During, the photo identification proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July 2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28)in the said flat. He also identified the photograph of Shahrukh Ansari and stated that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in this flat, this person was also present at the said flat in Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28). He also identified the photograph of Shahrukh Ansari and stated that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in this flat, this person was also present at the said flat in Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28). Therefore, from the material which has come in course of investigation basis upon which the supplementary chargesheet has been submitted, it would be evident that the complicity of the appellant is similar to that of Akash Kumar Roy. The complicity of the other appellant who has been directed to be released on bail, i.e., Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav, there is no allegation of receiving arms and ammunitions in huge quantity against him. However, he was alleged with the harbouring of Shahrukh Ansari. It further appears from the order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2022 wherein the period of custody has also been taken into consideration and the plea of custody of the appellant has also been made a ground. 12. The question will be as to whether in the matter of NIA keeping the mandate of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, the period of custody can be a ground to release on bail but we are not making any remark upon the said order, since we are not sitting in appeal of the said order but the same is being referred herein on the ground that the appellant of this case is also languishing in judicial custody and that ground has been taken for the purpose of making out a case for release on bail. 13. The law is well settled as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Supra) wherein only requirement for the court granting bail is by recording prima facie case as per the statutory command as per Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and the court is 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. It has further been laid down, as would appear from paragraph 23 of the judgment rendered in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Supra) as has been referred hereinabove that 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. It has further been held that 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. 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. The aforesaid ratio has again been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India reported in (2021) 4 SCC 704 which reads hereunder as:- “13. While considering the grant of bail under Section 43-D(5), it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire material on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. … … … … … …” It is, thus, evident that while granting the privilege of bail, the court considering the aforesaid application is required to record its opinion that the accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie true or otherwise. That 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 Cr.P.C.) and other material gathered by the investigating agency during investigation. 14. That 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 Cr.P.C.) and other material gathered by the investigating agency during investigation. 14. This Court, therefore, by taking into consideration the interpretation of the provision of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967, is of the view that the custody has not been mandated to be a ground for bail, rather, the requirement to see the basis of accusation in the F.I.R., the contents of the case diary including the chargesheet and other material gather by investigating agency. 15. This Court, in the aforesaid premise of the settled position, is of the view that the custody cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail, rather, it is the accusation made in the F.I.R., contents of the case diary and the material gathered in the chargesheet is of prima consideration. 16. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid consideration, is of the view that herein also the specific involvement of the appellant has been surfaced, as would appear from paragraphs 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the supplementary chargesheet, as quoted and referred hereinabove. This Court, after going through the imputation of allegation levelled against Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav vis-à-vis Akash Kumar Roy, is of the view that the case of the appellant is identical to that of the case of Akash Kumar Roy in view of the allegation as surfaced under paragraphs 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the supplementary chargesheet. 17. This Court, on the basis of the consideration of the material collected in the supplementary chargesheet, is of the view that the accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie true. So far as the case of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav is concerned, against whom the allegation of harbouring the terrorist is there, therefore, the case of the appellant is not identical to that of the Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav, rather, the case of the appellant is identical to the case of Akash Kumar Roy. So far as the case of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav is concerned, against whom the allegation of harbouring the terrorist is there, therefore, the case of the appellant is not identical to that of the Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav, rather, the case of the appellant is identical to the case of Akash Kumar Roy. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has already rejected the prayer for bail of Akash Kumar Roy, therefore, the instant appeal also deserves to be rejected since we are not prima facie satisfied that it is a case where the privilege of bail is to be granted in favour of the appellant as per the discussion made hereinabove. 18. This Court, on the basis of the reason assigned hereinabove, is of the view that the order impugned suffers from no infirmity. 19. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.