JUDGMENT : K. SURESH REDDY, J. The present criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.33 challenging the order dated 11-03-2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.354 of 2024 in RC-02/2018/NIA/HYD in SC No.19 of 2023 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the Trial Court'), whereby and whereunder the Trial Court dismissed the above miscellaneous petition filled by the appellant-accused No.33 seeking to enlarge him on bail. 2. Heard Sri P. Srinivasulu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No.33 and Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Jupudi V.K. Yagna Dutt, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts succinctly which led to file this criminal appeal are thus : The appellant is accused No.33 in Crime No.65 of 2018 of Dumbriguda Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. Alongwith other co-accused, the appellant is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 396 IPC, Sections 16, 18 to 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 1967 Act'), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, 1959 Act'). On 23.09.2018 at about 12.10 hours, Sri Kidari Sarveswara Rao, a Member of Legislative Assembly and Whip of Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and one Sri Siveri Soma, Former Member of Legislative Assembly belonging to Telugu Desam Party, were killed near Livittiputtu Village, Pothangi Panchayat, within the jurisdiction of Dumbriguda Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. This incident took place when both of them were proceeding to Sarai Village to attend a function called 'Grama Darsini'. The allegation is that 45 accused persons who belonged to Communist Party of India (Maoist), a terrorist organization notified in the First Schedule of 1967 Act, stopped the convoy of vehicles of the aforesaid two leaders. The accused compelled them to get out of their cars. Both of them were taken towards Y-Junction. Thereafter, the M.L.A., was taken to the left hand side of Y-Junction and the Ex.M.L.A., was taken to the right hand side of Y-Junction. Both of them were killed by three gunshots. The Private Personal Assistant of the deceased sitting M.L.A., lodged FIR on the same day, in which he named 45 accused. Both of them were taken towards Y-Junction. Thereafter, the M.L.A., was taken to the left hand side of Y-Junction and the Ex.M.L.A., was taken to the right hand side of Y-Junction. Both of them were killed by three gunshots. The Private Personal Assistant of the deceased sitting M.L.A., lodged FIR on the same day, in which he named 45 accused. Earlier, investigation was carried out by a Special Investigation Team and subsequently, the same was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (for short, 'NIA'). The NIA registered the case as RC-02/2018/NIA/HYD. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.46 and 47 were arrested on 13.10.2018. A charge-sheet was filed against them on 10.04.2019. During the course of further investigation, the appellant-accused No.33, who was arrested and lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, in connection with Crime No.48 of 2022 of Peddabayalu Police Station, Visakhapatnam, was produced before the Trial Court on 26.08.2022 on execution of production warrant and was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, a fourth supplemental charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused No.33 on 21.02.2023. 4. Sri P. Srinivasulu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No.33, would contend that the charge-sheet is not yet numbered and the prosecution failed to comply with the objections taken by the Trial Court and the NIA nominally filed charge-sheet to deny the statutory right of the appellant-accused No.33; that even as per the investigation of the NIA, the alleged act of the appellant-accused No.33 does not attract the provisions of 1967 Act and that there is no material placed to prove that the appellant-accused No.33 is a member of proscribed terrorist organization. Learned Counsel would submit that accused Nos.46, 47, 65 and 84 and some other accused were already enlarged on bail and the appellant-accused No.33 also stands on the same footing as that of accused Nos.46, 47, 65 and 84 and that parents of the appellant-accused No.33 are aged and his father has been suffering from back pain and blood pressure. Learned Counsel therefore prays to enlarge the appellant-accused No.33 on bail. 5. Learned Counsel therefore prays to enlarge the appellant-accused No.33 on bail. 5. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Jupudi V.K. Yagna Dutt, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, would submit that there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order; that the appellant-accused No.33 is not entitled for bail in view of the existence of prima facie case against him and in view of the mandate of law as provided under proviso to Section 43-D(5) of 1967 Act and that the appellant-accused No.33 is facing charges of grave nature pertaining to crimes that are not attributable to an individual but members of a proscribed terrorist organization and if the appellant-accused No.33 is released on bail, he would immediately abscond and join the underground cadres of proscribed organization and there is every likelihood that he would influence the key witnesses of the case hampering the process of justice. Learned Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Afzal Khan @ Babu Murtuzakhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2007 SC 2111 , to contend that a bail application in a case involving the security of State should be rejected. Learned Counsel, while admitting that accused Nos.59 and 84 already stand enlarged on bail, contends that since the appellant-accused No.33 is the person who was present in the team of Maoist cadre and who took both the sitting MLA and the former MLA and killed them, he cannot be allowed to claim parity with other co-accused to whom this Court has granted bail on altogether different grounds. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have perused the entire material available on record. The present case involves the charges under 1967 Act alongwith other charges under IPC and 1959 Act. It is therefore apt to consider the bail provision envisaged under Section 43-D(5) of 1967 Act before we delve to analyze the facts. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have perused the entire material available on record. The present case involves the charges under 1967 Act alongwith other charges under IPC and 1959 Act. It is therefore apt to consider the bail provision envisaged under Section 43-D(5) of 1967 Act before we delve to analyze the facts. Section 43-D(5) of 1967 Act is extracted hereunder for easy reference : "Section 43-D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.-(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters-IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release : Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true." A bare reading of sub-section (5) of Section 43-D shows that apart from the fact that sub-section (5) bars a Special Court from releasing an accused on bail without affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on the application seeking release of an accused on bail, the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43-D puts a complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail. It lays down that if the Court, 'on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure', is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter-IV and/or Chapter-VI of 1967 Act is prima facie true, such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond. It is interesting to note that there is no analogous provision traceable in any other statute to the one found in Section 43-D(5) of 1967 Act. In that sense, the language of bail limitation adopted therein remains unique to 1967 Act. 7. It is interesting to note that there is no analogous provision traceable in any other statute to the one found in Section 43-D(5) of 1967 Act. In that sense, the language of bail limitation adopted therein remains unique to 1967 Act. 7. A perusal of the material available on record would show that based on the complaint of Sri Yanda Appa Rao, Private Personal Assistant to the deceased sitting MLA-LW4, the instant case was registered at Dumbriduga Police Station, Visakhapatnam, initially against accused Nos.1 to 45 and the appellant herein is named as accused No.33 in the First Information Report. In the further statement of Sri Kona Ramana, the then gunman of the deceased sitting MLA-LW1, it is stated that he attended the test identification parade conducted by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, and in the said test identification parade, he identified the appellant, whom he had seen on 23.09.2018 in olive green Maoist uniform, carrying a pistol and that the appellant alongwith other accused stopped the vehicle, got down the deceased from the vehicle, tied their hands and thereafter the Maoists including the appellant took the deceased to Y junction and killed them. During the initial investigation conducted by the NIA, photo identification proceedings were conducted on 08.06.2019 in the presence of two independent witnesses, wherein Sri Kuna Ramesh-LW10 identified one of the photographs as the appellant-accused No.33 as a Maoist who was present at the scene of offence and as one among the people who stopped the car, in which he was travelling with the deceased sitting MLA. During the course of investigation, it was stated by one Jetti Bhaskar Rao, Tahsildar (FAC), Peddabayalu Mandal-LW5 that as per the information available with their office, the appellant-accused No.33 has been away from the village and working with Communist Party of India (Maoist), a proscribed terrorist organization. 8. The appellant-accused No.33 has been in judicial custody from 26.08.2022 apart from the fact that he is shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are 131 cases, including the present one, shown in the charge-sheet against the appellant-accused No.33, commencing from the year 2013. A perusal of the material available on record would further show that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide Government Memo No.1419720 dated 14.10.2021, announced a cash reward of Rs.5,00,000/- against the appellant-accused No.33. 9. There are 131 cases, including the present one, shown in the charge-sheet against the appellant-accused No.33, commencing from the year 2013. A perusal of the material available on record would further show that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide Government Memo No.1419720 dated 14.10.2021, announced a cash reward of Rs.5,00,000/- against the appellant-accused No.33. 9. On a perusal of the statements recorded from LWs.1, 4, 5 and 10 and the report made under Section 173 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant-accused No.33 are prima facie true. Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused No.33 claims parity with accused Nos.46, 47, 65 and 84 who were granted bail. In the case on hand, the material on record prima facie indicates the complicity of the appellant-accused No.33 and there are direct eye-witnesses to the incident. Therefore, the appellant-accused No.33 cannot be allowed to claim parity with other co-accused to whom this Court and the Apex Court granted bail on altogether different grounds. 10. Learned Counsel argued that the trial in the case has not yet commenced and the appellant-accused No.33 has been in judicial custody from 26.08.2022 and therefore prays to enlarge the appellant-accused No.33 on bail. Mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No.33 cannot be accepted. 11. In the instant case, we are satisfied from the charge-sheet as also the other material/documents relied upon by learned Counsel for the respondents that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant-accused No.33 are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43-D(5) of 1967 Act would be applicable for not releasing the appellant-accused No.33 on bail. Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences, previous criminal history of the appellant-accused No.33 as mentioned in the charge-sheet, the severity of punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and prima facie material collected during the course of investigation, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be interfered with. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal appeal is dismissed. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Needless to say that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present criminal appeal and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter before the Trial Court. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.